Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Downtown Outcomes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Workshop: Downtown Outcomes Meeting Date: August 10, 2009 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Planning & Development Staff Contact: Amanda Nobel Flannery www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5535 ISSUE STATEMENT The workshop is a follow-up to the council’s July 8, 2009, discussion on downtown economic development and urban renewal as a potential local economic stimulus tool. The council expressed interest in talking about desired downtown outcomes prior to resuming discussion on the various mechanisms available for achieving the outcomes. The August 10 workshop will not have the standard work session procedures; instead, the meeting will be in workshop format facilitated by the City. At the beginning of the workshop, staff will frame the overall goal for the meeting and provide a brief summary of current downtown-related policies, plans, and prior public involvement efforts as a basis for the council’s workshop exercise. The council will then discuss and prioritize desired downtown outcomes. No formal action is requested. Staff will, however, look for feedback and input. BACKGROUND The council had an initial conversation on economic development at the January 28, 2009, work session and unanimously approved adoption of a City of Eugene Mayor and City Council Economic Development Statement. The economic stimulus discussion continued at work sessions on April 13 and May 27, 2009. On May 27, the council approved actions on three economic development related items: 1) sale of surplus City real estate for identified development projects, 2) initiation of procedural code amendments, and 3) consideration of an amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. On July 8, the council held a follow-up work session where staff a) addressed questions raised and ideas discussed at the May 27 work session and b) provided next steps for a strategy to reinforce existing programs and businesses downtown and to create a series of stimulus actions to strengthen the City’s role in community economic development. In addition to other materials, staff provided a summary of downtown project tools and assistance. (The tools summary is included again as Attachment A.) No formal action was taken on July 8; however, the council did express interest in talking about desired downtown outcomes prior to resuming discussion on the various tools available for achieving the outcomes. Since 2000, the council, staff, and the community have created and prioritized various goals, policies, and recommendations for downtown. Attachment B provides a summary of the 19 plans, policy documents, or community involvement efforts relevant to a discussion of desired downtown outcomes. The council’s approval or review status and a summary of the key outcomes is provided for each. All of the planning efforts reiterate common themes and aspirations for a vital, economically healthy, and inviting city center. Attachment C provides a summary matrix. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090810\S090810B.doc Next Steps The council will have several options following and based upon the August 10 workshop. Staff has tentatively scheduled time at the September 14 work session for a follow-up, which could include links between desired outcomes and projects and a review of relevant tools, specifically including urban renewal information with an opportunity for action on initiating the plan amendment process. Staff would provide the following materials prior to that type of work session: specific project information, boundary maps, a summary of discussions with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee, related draft potential changes to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, accompanying Report on the Plan, and a summary of the implications of recent legislative actions. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council is not being asked to consider options for this workshop. At the September 14 Urban Renewal Agency work session, the board will consider projects and tools related to the outcomes expressed at this workshop. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No recommendation is necessary. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is necessary. ATTACHMENTS A.Downtown Project Tools and Assistance B.Planning and Public Involvement Efforts Relevant for a Downtown Outcomes Discussion C.Matrix Summary of Themes FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Amanda Nobel Flannery Telephone: 682-5535 Staff e-mail: amanda.nobelflannery@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090810\S090810B.doc ATTACHMENT A DOWNTOWN TOOLS AND ASSISTANCE At the May 27 work session, several City Councilors asked for additional information regarding available resources to support downtown development. For the purpose of this attachment, resources are divided into three categories: 1) Financing Tools, 2) Development Tools, and 3) Additional Tools. Financing Tools 1. are sources of funds. A. Urban Renewal B. Downtown Revitalization Loan Program C. Community Development Block Grant associated programs i. Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Grant and Section 108 Loan Guarantee ii. Business Development Fund D. Property tax exemptions i. Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption ii. Vertical Housing Development Zone E. Affordable Housing Tools F. City’s General Fund G. Improvement/Service Districts Development Tools 2. are uses of funds that support public/private partnerships, but that are not generally sources of funds on their own. A. Land assembly B. Public parking C. Public infrastructure D. Direct investment E. City as landlord or tenant Additional Tools 3. includes numerous actions by the City that directly and indirectly benefit businesses, visitors and residents downtown. A. Event programming B. Safety C. Beautification D. Business Assistance E. Planning efforts F. Staff impact The Financing and Development Tools are described below with a summation box, detailed narrative explanation, and an example downtown Eugene project. A narrative on the additional tools follows. The estimates in the attachment assume that the development agreements with Beam Development and WG Development occur as budgeted. If there are changes to those agreements and budgets, then the estimates in the attachment could change. 1. FINANCING TOOLS A. Urban Renewal Urban Renewal Summary ? Funds must be spent to benefit the district and for projects listed in the plan; currently, includes public improvements, off-site facilities, acquisition and redevelopment, relocation, development and redevelopment, staff for downtown projects, property disposition, and rehabilitation and conservation. ? Any expenditure over $250,000 (other than loans) must be explicitly approved by the URA Board ? Currently, $0.5 million remains under the spending limit (“maximum indebtedness”) ? Substantial plan amendment needed to increase spending limit (enter into obligation > $0.5 million) or expand boundary (>1%); 100+ day process: Review by ERAC, URA, & CC; o Public notice & public hearing; o URA approval & CC ordinance o ? Additional funds would be available as potential development resources, assuming a plan amendment (about $14.2 million, assuming current unallocated cash plus debt that is repaid over remaining life of district) ? Annual tax increment revenue is currently about $1.7 million ? The URA can borrow funds to complete projects; there is no current outstanding bonded debt. Borrowing is limited by several factors: remaining life of district, required debt coverage ratio and debt service reserve, & project interest rate Urban Renewal is a means to support economic development and civic improvement by a) encouraging private development and b) financing needed public improvements such as infrastructure, parks and open spaces, public plazas, parking garages or environmental improvements within designated districts. The City of Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA) is a separate entity authorized by state statutes. City Council acts as the Renewal Agency Board. The URA oversees two urban renewal districts – the Downtown District and the Riverfront District. Each district has its own URA adopted plan. Below is an explanation of available funds, the spending limit (maximum indebtedness), the plan amendment process, current and future obligations, access to future revenue, and an example of a previous urban renewal project. It should be noted, however, that the legislature has approved significant changes to urban renewal, and those changes have not yet been analyzed and incorporated into this analysis. Available Amounts for Development Projects: The Downtown District currently has an expenditure limit of approximately $0.5 million under the “maximum indebtedness” spending limit. The District currently has total available resources of approximately $3.0 million, as set out in the chart below. (A further explanation of “maximum indebtedness” follows the charts and an explanation of the downtown loan program is item 1.B.) Summary: Current Capacity of the Downtown Urban Renewal District Approximate for FY10 Amount Remaining Under Maximum Indebtedness Limit $ 0.5 million Downtown Loan Funds 2.5 million Total Amount Available $ 3.0 million If the Downtown District plan were amended to increase the “maximum indebtedness” limit, then there would be additional capacity to undertake downtown development projects. The following chart sets out an initial estimate of the amount that could be available for projects if the plan were amended to increase the limit. Summary: Potential Capacity of the Downtown Urban Renewal District Approximate for FY10 Amount Remaining Under Maximum Indebtedness Limit $ 0.5 million Additional Cash Available Beyond Maximum Indebtedness Limit 3.7 million Borrowing Capacity – assuming plan amendment & repayment over 14 years 10.5 million Downtown Loan Funds 2.5 million Total Amount Available $17.2 million Downtown District “Maximum Indebtedness”: Oregon Statutes require each district that receives property taxes to include a “maximum indebtedness” limit in their urban renewal plans. The Downtown District amended its plan in 1998 to include a maximum indebtedness limit of $33 million. “Maximum indebtedness” is a spending limit. Certain expenditures of the district are included in the “maximum indebtedness” calculation and certain expenditures are excluded. For instance, interest on debt and downtown loan funds are excluded from the calculation, but administrative expenses or direct cash payments for projects are included in the calculation. About $0.5 million remains under the $33 million limit in the Downtown District. For the district to enter into obligations that exceed the current limit (~ $0.5 million), a “substantial amendment” to the district’s plan is needed. The process is determined by Oregon Statute and the district’s plan. City-wide notice is required for changes in the maximum indebtedness and expansion of the district boundaries by more than 1%. The time necessary to complete the process for this type of special amendment is 100+ days. The major steps are: ? Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) may meet to discuss the proposed plan amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council ? City Council meets to initiate plan amendments ? URA submits plan amendments and report on the plan to taxing bodies affected by the district for review and comment ? City sends out special City-wide notice ? URA meets to receive the revised plan and report on the plan ? City Council holds a public hearing on the plan amendment ordinance ? City Council meets to approve ordinance amending the plan Current & Future Debt Obligations: The URA does not currently have bonds outstanding, but must pay the Library Obligations through December 2009 ($2.5 million). If the Downtown District plan is amended, it would be possible for the district to enter into obligations of greater than the $0.5 million allowed under the current “maximum indebtedness” figure. The Downtown District is scheduled to terminate in FY24. If the district entered into a new debt obligation (after substantially amending the plan) in FY10, that would leave 14 years for a debt obligation to be repaid. Assuming a 14 year repayment schedule, a 1.5 times debt coverage ratio, and a projected interest rate for next fiscal year, the Downtown District would have a debt capacity of approximately $10.5 million. It should be noted, however, that the legislature has approved significant changes to urban renewal, and those changes have not yet been analyzed and incorporated into this analysis. Project Examples: Downtown Athletic Club & Eugene Public Library The Downtown Athletic Club (DAC) is one of the most significant anchors downtown, employing 150 individuals and drawing club members and event visitors to the core of downtown daily. The presence of the , DAC is also an attractive amenity for office uses downtown. In the 1970sThe URA acquired the former Ax Billy Department Store building which was built in 1909. The building was mostly vacant and scheduled for demolition. The URA issued an RFQ and selected the DAC proposal. The URA sold the property in 1985 for its appraised value ($213,000), and also provided gap financing in the amount of $150,000 for the renovation. CDBG loan funds in the amount of $300,000 were also used for the initial renovation. The Ax Billy building is now on the National Register of Historic Places. All financing provided for the DAC project has been repaid in full. Property tax revenue on the property was $3,570 in 1984. Since the historic tax exemption expired in 2005, the DAC properties have paid $375,000 in property taxes. The Urban Renewal Agency and the City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement that committed the Agency to make the debt service payments on $18.5 million of City debt obligations for the library and to provide additional cash contributions to the project, if excess urban renewal revenues were available in future years. The resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement was approved by the Council and the Agency on February 28, 2000, along with the resolution authorizing issuance of the debt obligations. On April 27, 2000, the City issued $18.5 million of debt that was to be repaid from Agency resources. The debt was to be repaid in annual amounts of about $2.5 million and the final maturity is on December 1, 2009. The City pledged its full faith and credit to repay these bonds, but that pledge has not been used because tax increment revenues have been sufficient to make the debt payments. B. Downtown Revitalization Loan Program (DRLP) Downtown Revitalization Loan Program Summary ? Available funds FY10: $2.5 million ? Building improvements within Downtown Urban Renewal District ? Below market interest rate ? Matched with private financing The DRLP is a revolving loan program funded through Urban Renewal District program revenue. The FY10 budget will include approximately $2.5 million available for DRLP loans, with approximately $82,000 in principal and interest repayments forecasted in FY10. Available to businesses and property owners located within the Downtown Urban Renewal District, the DRLP is a flexible financing program designed to encourage investments within the Downtown District that contribute to the economic vibrancy and density goals for downtown. The primary goal of the DRLP is to provide funding assistance to projects that meet the goals and objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan for Central Eugene Project and the Eugene Downtown Plan. The program is also designed to be responsive to unique redevelopment opportunities, specific downtown redevelopment challenges, and specific individual project financing needs. The DRLP aims to encourage private, non-profit, and mixed-use development and public/private partnerships in overcoming issues with a low loan to value ratio, insufficient cash flow, and extraordinary project specific costs. The DRLP provides project financing typically between 25% and 50% of total eligible project costs. Eligible projects include building rehabilitation, façade improvements, tenant improvements, awnings, historic preservation, and accessibility improvements. Remaining project financing is provided by private sources. Loan amounts are generally between $10,000 and $500,000. The URA currently has approximately $900,000 of outstanding loans under the DRLP. The revolving nature of the program means that it is self-financing. As new loans are made, the payments on the loans are then returned to the loan pool and loaned out for new projects. Loans are approved by the City Manager. Example: Tiffany Building Built in the early 1900s, the Tiffany Building was severely damaged by a 1986 fire. The uninhabitable structure sat vacant for over five years and the improvements had an assessed value of only $500. In 1991, the URA provided gap financing in the amount of $350,000 for the renovation of the building. The Tiffany Building is now on the National Register of Historic Places. The renovation project included the creation of 18 new downtown housing units. Prior to the renovation, it had been several years since any new housing units were developed in the downtown core. The immediate market success of the Tiffany Building apartments played a major role in stimulating other downtown housing, including Broadway Place and High Street Terrace. The project has also attracted successful, local retailers. Financing provided for the project has been repaid in full. Since the historic tax exemption expired in 2005, the Tiffany Building property has paid $55,828 in property taxes. Examples of other downtown projects that have been assisted by DRLP funds include McDonald Theatre Building, Adam’s Place, Downtown English, Harlequin Beads & Jewelry, Bradford’s Hi-Fidelity, The Strand Building (occupied by Theo’s & Cozmic Pizza), Full City Coffee Roasters, Saturday Market, The Davis Restaurant & Bar, Zenon Café, and Ambrosia. C. Community Development Block Grant The City of Eugene receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CDBG projects must be used for projects that benefit low- and moderate- income individuals. A limited number of projects that eliminate conditions of slums and blight are also eligible. The City has two programs that can provide financial assistance to qualified projects. Brownfields Economic Development Initiative Grant (with HUD Section 108 Loan) BEDI / Section 108 Summary ? $2 million BEDI grant awarded to the City in 2006; $1.315 million remaining ? $7.95 million Section 108 loan pool approved by HUD; $5.189 million remaining ? The remaining BEDI & Section 108 funds are currently committed to Beam Development ? Individual project approval process: 1) Public hearing at City Council, 2) Council approval (resolution), & 3) HUD approval ? Project must meet HUD national objective Benefit low/mod income through job creation or provision of services o Eliminate conditions of slums and blight o ? Projects must be in Downtown or Riverfront urban renewal districts ? Section 108 funds must be repaid to HUD ? Primary collateral and debt service for remaining Section 108 borrowing would be developer repayments and urban renewal . Secondary collateral must also include the City’s pledge of future CDBG funds; City general funds may not be used as collateral The City was awarded a $2 million BEDI grant to assist redevelopment projects within the City's Downtown Urban Renewal and Riverfront Urban Renewal Districts. BEDI funds must be used in conjunction with a Section 108 guaranteed loan. HUD administers the BEDI as a key competitive grant program to stimulate and promote economic and community development. BEDI is designed to assist cities with the redevelopment of abandoned, idle, and underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion and redevelopment is burdened by real or potential environmental contamination. BEDI grant funds are targeted for use in the redevelopment of brownfield sites in economic development projects to increase economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons as part of the creation or retention of jobs and to eliminate conditions of slums and blight. Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the CDBG program. Section 108 allows cities to borrow up to five times their annual CDBG allocation; thereby, providing communities with a source of financing to support large-scale economic development, housing rehabilitation, and public facility projects. In March 2006, the City submitted a $7,895,000 Section 108 application that HUD later approved. Section 108 funds combined with BEDI funds are a loan fund for redevelopment projects within the two urban renewal districts that will make positive economic and community development benefits. Council authorized the use of the Section 108 loan program in an ordinance in February 2007. To draw down Section 108/BEDI funds, the specific project funding request is subject to a HUD public comment process, and a public hearing is required, followed by City Council and HUD approval. Projects that receive Section 108/BEDI funds must 1) meet a CDBG national objective of benefiting low or moderate income persons or eliminating conditions of slums or blight, 2) lead to economic revitalization in connection with brownfields, 3) be financially feasible, 4) be within reasonable risk, 5) be likely to be repaid, and 6) provide permanent, full- time employment for low and moderate income individuals. Example: Purchase of Centre Court and Washburne Buildings The Urban Renewal Agency used Section 108 loan and BEDI grant funds to purchase the Centre Court and Washburne buildings in July 2008, as part of the Beam Development project. Beam then purchased the properties from the Agency for a total purchase price of $3.6 million. The URA provided financing to Beam totaling $3.55 million for the property acquisition. The sources of funds for the URA’s financing included HUD Section 108 loan funds ($2.7 million), BEDI grant funds ($440,000), and DRLP funds ($404,000). The primary source of repayment for the Section 108 loan is payment from Beam Development on the loans from the URA. The secondary source of repayment is urban renewal, to the extent that there are funds available. The final source of repayment is future CDBG allocations. Business Development Fund (BDF) Business Development Fund Summary ? Available funds FY10: dependent on ongoing loan activity ? Below market interest rate ? Matched with private financing ? Eligible projects must create new jobs The BDF provides assistance to new and existing businesses through CDBG. Established to create jobs and stimulate private sector investment, the BDF could assist local tenants to start-up or relocate to downtown. The BDF is a self-sustaining revolving loan fund that was started 25 years ago. Funds are available to new and existing businesses within Eugene. While businesses that receive BDF loans must create or retain one full-time permanent job for every $35,000 in loan funds, companies have typically exceeded this minimum. Loan amounts have ranged from $10,000 to $500,000 and are generally between $75,000 and $150,000. The BDF can provide up to 50% of project financing. Remaining project financing is provided by private sources. Projects with greater needs may be eligible for the Emerging Business Loan Pool (EBLP), a program within the BDF, for businesses that face extraordinary credit barriers such as low-income status and female or minority owned business. Over 200 businesses have utilized the program and created more than 1,100 new jobs. The BDF program has loaned over $16 million and leveraged an additional $43 million in private investment. Examples: Historically, the BDF program has supported the start-up and expansion of several downtown businesses, including Lord Leebrick Theatre, Opus Six, Harlequin Beads and Jewelry, and Hartwick’s. D. Tax Exemptions Tax exemptions differ from other types of financial tools because they do not represent a direct expenditure by the City to another party for a development purpose. Instead, they represent foregone tax revenue. The theory behind the tax exemption is that the development would not have occurred “but for” the granting of the exemption. If the project would not have occurred without the exemption, then the tax revenue would not have ever been received. Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE): MUPTE Summary ? 10-year property tax exemption on core-area housing investment in 5 or more units ? Council approves each exemption MUPTE is enabled under state law for the purposes of stimulating the construction of multi-unit housing in the core area, and to ensure use of the core area as a place where citizens have the opportunity to live as well as work. The MUPTE program offers tax exemptions for the construction, addition, or conversion of rental or ownership multi-unit housing within the MUPTE boundary (see Exhibit A “MUPTE Boundary”). The exemption is granted on the new investment for a maximum of 10 years. (The land and non-housing value of the project is not included in the exemption). Projects must include a minimum of five new housing units. Tax exemption requests are reviewed and approved by City Council. Example: The Tate Condominiums The Tate Condominiums received a MUPTE in 2004 for new construction of 47 units. The annual tax exemption (to be granted to condo owners) in 2006 was estimated at $285,000, and is estimated to total $3.2 million over the 10-year period. Other examples include Broadway Place and High Street Terrace. Downtown Eugene Vertical Housing Development Zone: Vertical Housing Development Zone Summary ? Mixed-Use (ground level commercial and 1 or more levels of housing) ? 20% tax exemption per housing floor; 80% maximum ? 10-year property tax exemption Established under state law in 2001, vertical housing development zones encourage dense "mixed-use" development and redevelopment in urban cores. Specifically, an eligible project consists of ground-level commercial with one or more upper floors of residential housing that has been newly constructed, reconstructed, or rehabilitated. The Downtown Eugene Vertical Housing Development Zone was established in 2003 and matches the Downtown Plan boundary (see Exhibit B “Vertical Housing Development Zone Boundary”). The program offers a 10-year property tax exemption on the new structure, or incremental change in the property value of the building that comprises the project. The program grants a tax exemption of 20% for each floor of housing that is incorporated above ground floor commercial, with a maximum tax exemption of 80% for any single project. Tax exemption requests are reviewed and approved by the State of Oregon. The exemption is effective upon initial occupancy or re-occupancy and does not require City Council approval. No exemptions have been granted under this program to date. Example: A $25 million 3-story building, with 2-levels of housing would receive a 40% property tax exemption (20% for each floor of housing). Overall, the total annual property tax exemption would be approximately $100,000 and would be $1 million over the 10-year period. E. Affordable Housing Tools Affordable Housing Summary ? Low-Income Housing Tax Credits State administered o Equity for mixed-income or entirely affordable projects o ? Other potential tools for downtown: SDC Waivers, Property Tax Exemption, and Homeownership Assistance Program The City has developed a set of tools to invest in the development of affordable rental and ownership housing that is affordable to low-income households. The tools are typically used in combination with one another and with other subsidies allocated at the state level to make up the difference between development costs and the rents paid by low-income residents. The typical affordable rental housing development uses between 10 and 15 sources of funding to cover all necessary costs. The majority of the affordable housing resources may not be applicable to many downtown developments with the largest exception being the use of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Low Income Housing Tax Credits support the investment in affordable housing by providing equity for mixed-income or entirely affordable projects. The Federal program is administered by the State of Oregon. Several other City affordable housing tools and incentives that could potentially benefit a downtown development would include Systems Development Charge (SDC) Waivers, the Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption Program, and the Homeownership Assistance Program. Example: WestTown on 8th WestTown on 8th, owned and operated by Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation, has 102 housing units affordable to persons at 60% of AMI or below and nine market-rate live-work units. Tools used for the $22 million project include: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits,CDBG funds through City’s Landbanking program for the site (valued at $570,000 in 2004), $1,025,000 federal HOME Housing Development grant, $222,000 Eugene System Development Charge Waivers, 20-year Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption, $300,000 short-term low interest loan from the City – Housing Capital Project Fund and the Low-Income Housing Fund (generated through MUTPE fee payments), and other project subsidies for WestTown were provided by the Eugene Water and Electric Board and Lane County. F. City’s General Fund / Full Faith & Credit Pledge General Fund / Full Faith & Credit Pledge Summary ? Contribution to project from City’s general resources ? Provide security to bondholders for borrowings, with debt payments made from a different revenue source, and ultimate back-stop by the City’s general resources ? Guarantee urban renewal financing on an interim period prior to receipt of incremental revenues The City’s General Fund resources and its full faith & credit pledge may also be used to assist with downtown development projects. General Fund resources are unrestricted and may be used for any public purpose. General Fund resources, however, are subject to significant competition from the City’s other services and programs. The City’s full faith and credit pledge may be used to provide security for borrowings that are repaid from other sources, such as building rental revenues, parking revenues or urban renewal tax increment revenues. The City’s pledge for such borrowings results in access to the public capital markets and a lower interest rate for those borrowings that might not otherwise be available. Examples: Broadway Place Garages, Atrium Building, Eugene Public Library The City has used its full faith & credit pledge to secure downtown development project financing in the past. The Broadway Place Garages were financed with the City’s full faith and credit obligations that are repaid from parking system revenues. The Atrium building was purchased with City full faith and credit obligations that are paid from Atrium building rentals. The Eugene Public Library was partially financed with City full faith and credit obligations that are paid from urban renewal revenues. G. Assessments / Local Improvement Districts / Business Improvement Districts Assessments / Improvement / Business Districts Summary ? For transportation / utility projects ? Property owners may elect to finance through City Assessments and improvement districts can be used for infrastructure improvements, such as transportation or utility projects. Assessments and improvement districts spread the cost of the project among those that benefit. Property owners contribute to the cost of the project through assessments. For local improvement districts, property owners may finance their obligations through the City. Example: Downtown Service District Property owners pay a fee per square foot. Funds are used to provide services within the Downtown Service District. Downtown guides are the primary use of funds. 2. DEVELOPMENT TOOLS Development Tools are uses of funds that support public/private partnerships, but that are not generally sources of funds on their own. A. Land Assembly Land Assembly Summary ? Development footprint of adequate size is fundamental to project ? Areas of decline have many owners of small parcels ? City/URA can: Purchase property, buy purchase options; o Prepare site for development (demolition / predevelopment); and o Sell land at reduced price. o The expensive, long, and uncertain process of assembling property is a major barrier to private redevelopment. Cities and urban renewal agencies often take an active role in property assembly as a method of creating redevelopment opportunities and providing incentives for private reinvestment in a given area. Specific actions typically include securing purchase options, direct purchase for resale or contribution to development, demolition and predevelopment, and purchase price reductions. Example: The City of Eugene and the URA have previously assembled land for the benefit of the following projects: Beam Development (Centre Court & Washburne buildings), Broadway Place, Hilton Convention Center, Eugene Public Library, Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse, US Bank Building, Lane Transit District Downtown Station, and affordable housing development via the Landbanking Program. Parking Parking Summary ? Downtown core is a parking exempt area ? Important for developers and lenders for new housing construction ? Parking requirements for new development vary based on density and uses ? Structured parking revenues can support on-going operations and maintenance, but not the capital cost for building the garage ? City has historically provided structured parking to support private development and activity downtown The City owns and operates eight public structured parking facilities in the downtown core, including the Broadway Place structures at Broadway and Charnelton Street (366 north spaces and 363 south spaces), the Overpark at 10th Avenue and Oak Street (598 spaces), the Parcade at 8th Avenue and Willamette Street (438 spaces), the Pearl Street Garage (262 spaces), the HultCenter garage by the Hult Center (520 spaces), garage under the downtown library (69 spaces), and under City Hall (196 spaces). The City offers monthly bulk parking permit discounts of up to 30% for businesses that purchase bulk permits (50 or more permits) and have an active alternative modes plan. Although the downtown core area is parking exempt (meaning there are no requirements to provide parking under City code), developers and lenders will typically require that the development provide parking in support of certain types of uses. For example, market feasibility and lenders may require housing uses to meet a 1:1 housing unit to parking space ratio. Retail uses may also demand specific parking supply per square foot. The existing Land Use Code requires within the C3 zone that if parking of 20 or more spaces is to be provided that they be structured. Because there are cost constraints and income limitations associated with privately constructed structured parking, the provision of publicly provided parking can be a development tool. Examples: Broadway Place & Enterprise Rent a Car The Broadway Place development required parking spaces for the retail and housing components of this public/private partnership. The City assembled the land, built the two public garages, and sold the “air rights” to the developer at a reduced rate for the construction of commercial and residential portions. (The purchase of “air rights” allows the developer to develop on top of the garage.) Broadway Place also received a MUPTE (10- year property tax exemption on the housing portion of the project, currently in its last year). The City used its full faith and credit pledge to issue bonds to pay for the garage. The bonds are repaid from parking revenues. The City has not had to use its general resources to make debt service payments. Enterprise Rent-A-Car invested in a contact center in downtown Eugene in April, 2008. One of their decision factors was availability of affordable parking. Their location at 175 West Broadway is across the street from the Broadway North parking garage. It is also within a few blocks of two other garages and the downtown bus station. Enterprise Rent a Car was able to redevelop a formerly vacant building using existing parking infrastructure. C. Public Infrastructure Public Infrastructure Summary ? Utility relocation/upgrades, transportation improvements ? Investment in current and future developments in given area ? Funds from a wide variety of sources Public infrastructure includes streets, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, open space, pedestrian improvements, utility relocations and upgrades, or transportation improvements. Cities and urban renewal agencies can provide infrastructure as a means of investing in a development with the intended purpose of the development being a trigger for further development in the area that will also benefit from the infrastructure improvements. A variety of funds may be used to pay for the improvements, depending on the nature of the project, such as SDCs, assessments, road funds, general funds, tax increment funds, and other resources. Examples: Reopening of West Broadway, Courthouse District A public infrastructure investment was made with the reopening West Broadway in 2002. The project included the reopening of the street, pedestrian improvements, landscaping, and public art. The total expenditure was $2 million. Public funds were matched with $200,000 in private contributions. Additionally, the Riverfront Urban Renewal District provided funds to underground the utilities in the courthouse district. D. Direct Investment Direct Investment Summary ? URA participation through a grant program ? Funds from tax increment revenues The City/URA could also directly invest in a development as a way to reduce overall costs. Funds could come from various sources, but would most like come from tax increment financing. The City has not chosen to use direct investment in the past. The City’s preference has been to provide loans, which revolve and provide funding for additional future projects. Example: No previous example. E. City as Landlord or Tenant City as Landlord or Tenant Summary ? Set lease rates to fill spaces with desired occupants ? Improves feasibility of development or downtown location The City owns several downtown properties some of which have commercial space available. As a landlord, the City can offer lease terms to improve feasibility for a business or entity to locate downtown. Additionally, the City has a need for space downtown and can be a tenant. The City is a strong tenant and can serve as an anchor tenant to help satisfy lender leasing requirements. Example: Beam Development The City agreed to be a back-up tenant for the new building to be constructed on the vacant lot owned by Beam Development. The City’s commitment was instrumental in Beam’s decision to purchase the property and is considered to be a major consideration in Beam’s pursuit of financing for the construction of the new building. 3. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Numerous actions by the City directly and indirectly benefit businesses, visitors and residents downtown. In addition to financial and development tools, comprehensive programs and projects reinforce, refocus, or energize downtown enhancement efforts. These activities are designed to revitalize Eugene’s downtown by improving its image, business and residential climate, and physical environment. Each requires significant coordination, communication and staff expertise from different City departments, attention to critical details, and commitment to the vision for a revitalized downtown. These activities enhance the environment for downtown development, but may have a more limited impact in terms of facilitating specific redevelopment efforts. A. Event Programming Programming for activities and events supports downtown as the arts and culture center of the community and brings thousands of visitors into the core. The visitors may shop or eat downtown, or simply come to view downtown as a great place to visit or bring family and friends in the future. Activities include the Summer in the City offerings coordinated through Library, Recreation and Cultural Services (LRCS), the Eugene Celebration, Farmers’ Market and Saturday Market. Each of these activities requires City coordination, planning and publicity to achieve and maintain success and support downtown as a key destination; most of the staff involved are not dependent on urban renewal funds. Many of the downtown Summer in the City events are presented in cooperation with partners including Saturday Market and Downtown Eugene, Inc. Several City departments are actively involved in this collaboration; efforts include improved lighting in several locations and increased police downtown bicycle patrols to enhance safety and inhibit behavior problems. We continue to work with local downtown businesses, non-profits, developers and other institutions and partners in multiple ways to foster a more dynamic and attractive city center. B. Safety A safe downtown is a critical component of an active, economically vital downtown. The City supports downtown safety directly through the downtown police patrol, on bicycle, foot and in patrol cars, as well as indirectly through support for Downtown Eugene, Inc.’s Downtown Guides and the provision of restrooms. The City also provides additional safety enhancements through lighting, parking garage surveillance, and implementation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques. Event programming also enhances downtown safety, bringing positive energy and people to deter crime and to enhance the public’s experience and perception of safety. C. Beautification Beautification projects throughout downtown help create a welcoming, Eugene-based identity and environment. Hanging flower baskets, public art, well maintained planted areas, and thoughtfully designed plaza areas – all provide a downtown amenity and support the community goals for a revitalized city center. Urban renewal funding is more typically needed for larger redesign efforts, such as for the Park Blocks or Broadway Plaza, but smaller, localized amenities can be provided through other sources. D. Business Assistance City staff routinely provide business assistance for downtown owners, investors or developers seeking to redevelop or locate downtown. The assistance may be in the form of helping to identify funding sources or possible tenants, or providing more generalized information about opportunities and regulations downtown. Some of these services are fee based, such as limited consultations, which pull in key staff from various departments to focus on specific project scenarios. E. Planning Efforts Planning efforts coordinated by City staff provide a forum that brings public and private sector constituents together to discuss downtown issues, reinforce a downtown vision, and identify key next steps. Implementation of planning efforts for downtown have resulted in specific projects, including planning for EWEB and the Federal Courthouse area, code amendments to facilitate desired development downtown, and critical momentum for downtown development projects. Work under the direction of the Library, Culture and Recreations services has focused efforts on a Public Arts Master Plan, with a focus on key locations downtown. Staff for some but not all of these projects are supported through non urban renewal funds. F. City Staff Impact City employees are the largest group of downtown workers. They serve the public at a wide variety of jobs, often drawing people downtown, such as to the library or for building permits, as well as providing services that benefit the entire community. As downtown workers and patrons, City employees support downtown activities and patronize shops and restaurants. Downtown employees, both public and private, make a significant difference in creating a positive and active downtown environment. Exhibits A: MUPTE Boundary B: Vertical Housing Development Zone Boundary Exhibit A: MUPTE Boundary Exhibit B: Vertical Housing Development Zone Boundary ATTACHMENT B Planning & Public Involvement Efforts Relevant for a Discussion on Downtown Outcomes Since 2000, Council, staff, and the community have engaged in, created, and prioritized various goals, policies, and recommendations for downtown. Staff compiled a summary of the 20 plans, policy documents, or community involvement efforts relevant to a discussion of desired downtown outcomes. The approval or review status and a summary of the key outcomes for each is provided in this attachment, divided into three categories. Section A summarizes those documents and efforts focused exclusively on downtown. 1.Downtown Plan 2.Downtown Code Amendments 3.City Council Goal 2007 & 2008 – Downtown Initiative: Revitalize Downtown 4.City Hall Master Plan 5.West Broadway Advisory Committee Core Recommendations 6.Park Blocks Master Plan 7.Downtown Urban Renewal Plan 8.Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan 9.Central Area Transportation Study 10.Broadway Street Reopening 11.Broadway Design Standards 12.Courthouse District Concept Plan 13.Downtown Vision Section B summarizes those documents and efforts that reference downtown. 14.Cultural Policy Review 15.Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan 16.Mayor’s Committee on Economic Development Section C summarizes overarching Council goals, policies, and values. 17.City Council 2009 vision and goals 18.Growth Management Policies 19.Sustainable Business Initiative 20.Joint Elected Officials regional economic development principles Some of the documents contain policies adopted by ordinance, such as the Downtown Plan; others contain a list of desired results generated through public or stakeholder involvement and subsequently presented to council, such as the West Broadway Advisory Committee recommendations. All of these planning efforts reiterate common themes and aspirations for a vital, economically healthy, and inviting city center. SECTION A – ITEMS FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON DOWNTOWN 1.Downtown Plan Date: Ordinance passed April 2004 Context: In 2001, City Council accepted the Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene and directed staff to use it as the basis to update and replace the 1984 Downtown Plan. (The Vision was created by a City Council appointed committee in 2000.) In 2002, Mayor Torrey appointed Councilors Bettman, Meisner, and Nathanson to join with the City Planning Commission to form the Downtown Plan Update Committee. Public Involvement: The community involvement was extensive and multifaceted, ranging from city initiated events such as design workshops for the Downtown Vision and Courthouse District Concept Plan, to citizen initiated discussions, such as the City Club series on downtown planning. Residents were involved in both long-term vision discussions and specific design decisions. Numerous organizations and agencies partnered with the City in the development and review of the Plan: EWEB, University of Oregon, Lane Transit District, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. A draft of the Plan was released for public review on May 2003 including being posted on the City’s website. That same month, the plan was referred to the City of Springfield, Lane County, all neighborhood groups, and other interested parties. Notice of the proposed adoption was delivered to the Land Conservation and Development Commission and mailed to all owners and occupants of property within the Plan area and within 300 feet of the Plan area. The Planning Commission held a public hearing notice of which was published in the Register Guard. The Historic Review Board also reviewed and commented on the Plan. Two public open houses on the Plan and downtown financial tools were held, one in June and the other in December of 2003. Council Involvement: The policies in the textual version of the Downtown Plan were adopted as a refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan for the Downtown Plan Area on April 12, 2004. The implementation strategies were recognized as ways in which to implement the policies, but were not adopted as Council policy. Outcome: The Downtown Plan incorporates the Vision into a framework for public and private decisions affecting downtown in the future. The Plan includes nine related elements as fundamental aspects of downtown urban vitality and economic strength (listed below). The discussion of each element includes policies, implementation strategies, and examples of possible projects. 1)Strong Regional Center – build upon downtown’s role as the regional center, support urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and diversity: support business development 2)Building a Downtown – use of economic tools, collaborative, strategic actions th 3)Great Streets – recognize, create, support: 8 to the River, Willamette and Broadway as the arts th and entertainment district, 5 as a retail destination 4)Special Places – enhance, celebrate, reinforce: Park Blocks, Broadway Plaza in particular, as well as new places and historic places 5)Living Downtown – encourage downtown housing: variety of ownership and cost options, redesign sidewalks and provide park for downtown open space 6)Downtown Riverfront – create a special place, provide access 7)Cultural Center – reinforce arts and entertainment 8)Safe Civic Center – take actions to make downtown safe and inviting 9)Getting Around Downtown – create walkable streets, support transit, take actions to support vital downtown, “park once” concept 2.Downtown Code Amendments Date: 2008 & 2009 Context: The Downtown Code Amendment Project was identified as one of the six Key Next Steps resulting from the Downtown Vision, and is an implementation strategy in the Downtown Plan, adopted in 2004. Public Involvement: The Downtown Code Amendment project benefited from significant public involvement. Twenty-six public meetings have occurred since the inception of the project in 2004, including numerous public workshops and Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee meetings, in addition to work sessions and public hearings of the Planning Commission and City Council. Council Involvement: Council took action to initiate the code amendment project in 2006. Council adopted a first round of code amendments for downtown in July 2008 and a second round in June 2009. Outcome: ? Amend code to facilitate desired development ? Consider design review and green building 3.City Council Goal – Downtown Initiative: Revitalize Downtown Date: Goal in 2007 and 2008 Context: In January 2007, council adopted downtown revitalization as one of its ten goals for the 2007- 08 biennium. Public Involvement: The City Council Downtown Initiative Goal Team was in internal team of City staff members from a wide spectrum of departments and divisions led by Fire Chief Randy Groves. Council Involvement: Council received quarterly reports on the progress of the team as well as outcomes of efforts towards revitalizing downtown. In March 2008, Chief Groves forwarded for council review a draft action plan, proposing three priority implementation strategies. No modifications were received from council to the action plan. Outcome: The Priority Implementation Strategies are listed below. ? Facilitate Downtown Redevelopment Opportunities ? Align Downtown Efforts with Community-wide Planning and Development Efforts ? Promote interdepartmental teamwork in support of a revitalized downtown 4.City Hall Master Plan Date: Fall 2005 to Summer 2008 Context: In 2001, the City Council began considering a long-range plan for filling the City’s need for additional office space. In November 2004, the City Council decided to move forward with master planning for a city government complex. In September 2005, the City contracted with Thomas Hacker Architects. The planning process included three phases: 1) policy advisement phase for Council to establish parameters; 2) development plan phase, which culminated with a document to capture the activities and conclusions of the phase; and 3) implementation plan phase. Public Involvement: Extensive public involvement, based on the International Association for Public Participation Core Values for Public Participation, went into the master planning process, the majority of which occurred in creation of the development plan (phase two). The main elements were resident interviews, community forums, specialized input groups for underrepresented groups, neighborhood association and other established civic group outreach, outreach at major community events/festivals, a website, a comment line, tours of existing facility, and efforts to engage print and electronic media. Council Involvement: Council approved the position statements and project values in phase 1. The Development Plan (phase 2) was provided to Council as an attachment to an agenda item summary. Significant changes in the economy required a shift in the City’s problem-solving and spending priorities. As a result, Council decided to postpone potential financing efforts and have not yet adopted a formal implementation plan (the last step for phase 3). Outcome: Generally, the process resulted in a vision for City Hall based on the values and priorities of Eugene residents. A summary of the position statements and project values approved by Council in phase 1 is listed below. ? Consolidate City services to the greatest practical extent (for efficiency and customer service) ? Reinforce the Downtown Plan, particularly 8th Ave. as the “Great Civic Street” and connection to the river ? Enhance downtown ? Inspire civic pride ? Plan for the future ? Be user-friendly ? Embody environmental stewardship ? Strive for simplicity ? Exercise fiscal responsibility 5.West Broadway Advisory Committee Core Recommendations Date: 2007 Context: In May 2007, City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency, selected two redevelopment proposals for West Broadway, Beam Development and KWG Development, and initiated a public involvement process led by a community advisory team. The West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) included eleven members appointed by Mayor Piercy and was charged with the task of providing recommendations regarding redevelopment concepts for West Broadway. Public Involvement: WBAC met nine times over the summer of 2007, sponsored two public workshops, and coordinated with other summer events. The level of public involvement was high; more than 400 community members attended the workshops and hundreds of email comments were received. Council Involvement: Council initiated the public involvement process and focused the work of the committee on five key redevelopment issues. The recommendations of WBAC were presented to the Urban Renewal Agency in September and were subsequently approved with minor modifications. Outcome: The work of the WBAC and additional public involvement resulted in a series of core recommendations and qualifications or elaborations on five areas specific to West Broadway. The six bullets below summarize the core recommendations. ? Encourage mix of uses in each block; maximize residential uses, provide unique entertainment and retail, maximize retail use of the ground floor ? Support the “Park Once” concept; reduce demand and maximize use of existing structured supply ? Provide open space across from library and enhance existing plazas and Great Street Sidewalks as public open space ? Support Great Street concepts, consider design review, encourage quality design and materials ? Support local and existing businesses 6.Park Blocks Master Plan Date: 2006 Context: The plan preceded a proposed bond measure and was developed to: a) address the short- range rehabilitation of existing Park Blocks infrastructure to better support current users while maintaining compatibility with a longer range vision and b) to develop a long-term vision of how the Park Blocks could be used and what kind of improvements could accomplish that vision. Public Involvement: A 16 member committee included representation from user groups (e.g. Saturday Market, Farmers’ Market) and organizations with an interest in downtown improvement, arts, entertainment, neighborhoods, and staff. The committee met five times over three months and both heard from and then shared their recommendations with the public. Council Involvement: Council received updates during the process and the final recommendations. Outcome: The main recommendations are listed below. ? Enhance and support the City’s most vital and active urban space ? Provide improvements for markets ? Encourage desirable adjacent uses, including housing ? Support Great Streets concept ? Enhance Federal Courthouse & River District access ? Support Downtown redevelopment ? Coordinate with new Eugene City Hall planning ? Coordinate with planned conversion of Eighth Avenue to two-way traffic 7.Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Date: Adopted – 1968; Modified – 1968, 1989, 1998, & 2004 Context: The Downtown District was established in 1968 to redevelop 17 blocks in the downtown area. The original project goals involved land acquisition, building rehabilitation, and construction of public improvements. An update of the 1968 plan was approved by voters in 1990 and was set to expire in FY10. In June 1998, City Council chose one of the options provided by Measure 50 legislation that allowed for a City-wide special levy as well as dividing the taxes collected within the district. Council limited expenditures of new funds to completing existing projects and construction of a new main library. They also approved a plan to reduce district administration over the following three years. By 2004, the library construction was complete. Public Involvement: In addition to the City Council public hearing in August 2004, the amendments were the subject of significant opportunity for public comment. At each of the public information sessions related to the update of the Downtown Plan (see item #1), use of urban renewal funding in the Downtown District was highlighted as a tool. One event “Lookin’ Forward at Downtown” drew over 125 people during the December 2003 First Friday Art Walk. Council Involvement: City Council amended the plan to allow funding for other activities including economic revitalization strategies and to extend the termination date to June 30, 2024. Reviews of the plan are required in 2009 and 2019. Outcome: A summary of the Downtown District Plan goals are listed below. ? Improve the function, condition and appearance of the district ? Eliminate blight and blighting influences ? Strengthen the economic conditions of the plan area ? Improve the downtown’s importance in the region by strengthening its economic base ? Enhance its role as a central location of public and private development and investment 8.Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan Date: Adopted – 1985; Modified – 2004 Context: The Riverfront District was created in 1985 to assist in financing public infrastructure. The development in the Riverfront Urban Renewal District area is intended to play a critical role in the revitalization of the metropolitan area's economy by providing a unique opportunity to develop an area that connects downtown Eugene to the Willamette River, connects to University of Oregon, and will house the new federal courthouse. The area is envisioned to include retail, commercial, housing and recreation. The original district encompassed nearly 148 acres adjacent to and including the University of Oregon’s Riverfront Research Park site. Public Involvement: The update of the Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan was a "substantial amendment" and was treated as a high profile action with significant opportunity for public comment. At each public information session related to the Downtown Plan update (see item #1), use of urban renewal in the Riverfront District was highlighted as a tool. One event, “Lookin’ Forward at Downtown” drew over 125 people during the December 2003 First Friday Artwalk. In January 2004, a letter was mailed to each of the taxing districts informing them of the proposed amendments and inviting comment. The letter included a copy of the draft plan, a copy that showed proposed changes, and the Riverfront Urban Renewal District Report. A postcard was mailed to every household in Eugene with information on the proposed amendments and the public hearing date. Council Involvement: The district plan was reviewed and amended by the City Council in March 2004. City Council amended the boundaries of the district to add another 30 acres, bringing the total area to approximately 178 acres. Major changes in the plan amendments included changing the name of the district from the “Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Area” to the “Riverfront Urban Renewal Area,” extending the termination date to 2024, expanding and revising the list of project activities, providing new cost estimates of the projects to be undertaken, establishing a maximum indebtedness of $34.8 million, and providing other information about the impact of the amendments. Outcome: A summary of the Riverfront District Plan goals are listed below. ? Improve the function, condition, and appearance of the development area ? Eliminate existing blight and blighting influences ? Strengthen the economic and environmental conditions of the plan area and the metropolitan area ? Stimulate development activity and amenities near the new federal courthouse ? Stimulate appropriate redevelopment in the Riverfront area currently occupied by EWEB, if EWEB relocates in whole or in part from this property ? Improve connections between the core of downtown, Riverfront, and the University of Oregon ? Protect or enhance the riparian area 9.Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) Date: 2004 Context: The CATS updated the previous plan completed in 1987. The purpose was to provide analysis and recommendations on the role of transportation and alternative modes in supporting efforts for a revitalized downtown, in collaboration with the Downtown Plan. CATS was also intended to incorporate planning ideas from previous downtown related studies, including the South Bank Study, the North End Scoping Study, the Courthouse District Concept Plan and the Downtown Vision. In order to address transportation continuity issues, the CATS boundary is somewhat larger than the Downtown Plan boundary. Public Involvement: CATS was available for public review and comment and was the subject of public hearings and work sessions before Planning Commission and City Council. Council Involvement: Council adopted the final plan in June 2004. Outcome: The implementation strategies contained in the document are recognized as potential means of addressing adopted policies, such as one way to two way conversions, or potential street improvements. ? Enhance livability of downtown ? Improve street systems for walking, transit and bicycle ? Create Great streets to encourage pedestrians ? Support a frequent transit based shuttle service ? Support intensive downtown development; ensure adequate parking supply ? Make parking convenient, affordable, safe, easy to use 10.Broadway Street Reopening Date: 2002 Context: Council approved the appointment of the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning. The Create Great Streets components of the Downtown Visioning recommendations A@ were presented to Council who accepted a Downtown Visioning implementation work plan for Redesign Broadway, which recommended a public vote on reopening Broadway. The voters strongly supported the street reopening. Public Involvement: In 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual design for reopening Broadway. The design was generated by a collaborative design team consisting of City staff (Public Works Engineering, Public Works Transportation, and Planning & Development) and a professional design group including TBG Architects & Planners, WBGS Architecture & Planning, Robertson/Sherwood Architects, Satre Associates, and Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers. In addition to the design team input, the street design reflects significant public input that occurred before the public vote and during the project design. Public involvement in the design was consistent with the citizen involvement plan presented to Council and the Citizen Involvement Committee, including multiple design workshops, meetings with neighborhood groups, meetings with Downtown Eugene, Inc. board members and the Downtown Advocacy Alliance, meetings with property owners, business owners, and other organizations. The group also conducted a rolling charrette down Broadway to investigate existing conditions, solicit input from A@ street users, and identify design parameters for transforming Broadway into a Great Street. Conceptual st images of Broadway as a Great Street were developed and displayed in conjunction with the 1 Friday Artwalk. The City received comments from over 100 citizens at this event. Additional public involvement occurred after the public vote and prior to final design, including workshops, meetings with neighborhood groups, property owners and others. Council Involvement: Council referred the Broadway street reopening to the voters and approved the funding for the street reopening. Outcome: The street was reopened based on the design standards listed below. ? Lively, active pedestrian destination ? Slow moving two- way vehicular traffic ? On-street parking ? Increase density, mix of uses ? High quality streetscape amenities ? Special treatment at intersections ? Enhance community identity and respect historic character ? Effective use of trees/landscaping to enhance quality of street ? Street integrates with special places ? Use of street for community events 11.Broadway Design Standards Date: 2002 Context: City Council requested that design standards be created to coincide with the Broadway street reopening. The purpose of the standards is to achieve the Great Street proposed in the A@ Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene to create, over time, a pleasant, pedestrian friendly, C interesting and vibrant street with much retail activity. Public Involvement: While developing the proposed standards for Broadway, the City hosted two workshops with its consulting architect, Mark Seder, corresponded with many local design professionals (many of whom are located on Broadway), talked to Downtown Eugene, Inc., Chamber of Commerce, several property owners and tenants, downtown residents, and the Downtown Plan Update Committee. The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing on the draft Broadway Overlay Zone. Council held a public hearing prior to adoption. Council Involvement: Council provided direction to adopt Broadway design standards to coincide with the Broadway street reopening. Council adopted the Broadway Overlay Zone. Outcome: ? Encourage development and active uses on the ground floor ? Require the key physical attributes that will support retail uses and pedestrian activity ? Restrict uses that deter from active street activity 12.Courthouse District Concept Plan Date: 2002 Context: The Courthouse District Concept Plan was an identified as one of the six “Key Next Steps” prioritized for implementation from the Downtown Vision. Public Involvement: Three intensive workshops were held in August, September and November 2001 to develop and refine emerging design concepts. Council Involvement: Council approved the Plan in July 2002. Outcome: Concepts from the plan were included in subsequent planning efforts, including the Downtown Plan, the Central Area Transportation Study as well as the transportation improvements around the Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse. ? Connect the courthouse area to the core of downtown ? Create a special area around the new courthouse ? Contribute to the vitality of the core of downtown ? Connect downtown to the river in a memorable and accessible way 13.Downtown Vision Date: 2000 Context: Council initiated a Downtown/Franklin Boulevard Willamette River Visioning Project in November 1999. Public Involvement: The Downtown Vision had a significant amount of public engagement, including a community committee, and public workshops, including an all day event that was attended by more than 200 community members. The resulting vision was reviewed by council and discussed over the course of multiple work sessions. Council Involvement: Council appointed a 17 member Greater Downtown Visioning Committee, which included 3 council members. Council received and reviewed the Vision report in November 2000, and reviewed the recommendations in over the course of three work sessions. Outcome: In April, 2001, council identified six priority “Key Next Steps” for implementation: create a design and a process to reopen Broadway, complete an update to the Downtown Plan, create a redevelopment concept for the courthouse and riverfront areas, review the policies regarding housing preservation for residential neighborhoods surrounding downtown, and complete an update to the Central Area Transportation Plan. All of these are complete except the riverfront area plan, which is underway. ? Create great neighborhoods, create great streets ? Create and connect special places ? Connect downtown to the River ? Strengthen downtown as a regional center ? Expand housing cultural and recreational opportunities ? Transform Franklin Boulevard into a gateway into downtown ? Capitalize on development opportunities SECTION B – DOCUMENTS AND EFFORTS THAT REFERENCE DOWNTOWN 14.Cultural Policy Review Date: 2007 Context: City Council authorized a cultural policy review in the spring of 2005. Funding was approved for two years in support of the City Council Goal to promote the Arts & Outdoors, which included the City Council’s endorsement of branding Eugene as the “World’s Greatest City of the Arts Outdoors>” The City contracted with WolfBrown in June 2006 to conduct the year-long process. The purpose was to examine current conditions, services, and gaps in the cultural sector, to identify goals and strategies to strengthen that sector, and to provide options to assist the City in defining its role in support of Eugene’s arts and culture. Public Involvement: The consultants: 1) conducted a cultural assessment through over 50 confidential interviews and a dozen focus groups with representatives of all sectors of the community, 2) Designed and conducted a public process of community meetings, attended by over 300 individuals, 3) implemented a “cultural” consensus” survey of Eugene residents’ interests in an priorities for arts and culture that was completed by almost 2,500 individuals and 4) worked with a specially-appointed Mayor’s Committee that provided community perspectives and feedback. Council Involvement: The CPR report was unanimously accepted by the City Council in __. Downtown Related Outcome: The CPR report provides details of the review and offers a vision, goals and strategies, and an approach to implementation designed to enhance and strengthen the cultural sector. Of the report’s five key findings in issue areas, Downtown and the Built Environment related to art and culture was identified as having the ability to enhance revitalization efforts and highlight the value Eugene places on arts and culture. The summary vision for 2017 includes two sentences on downtown: “…Eugene’s downtown is alive with an appealing mix of creative experiences for people of all ages. The Hult Center, its Resident Companies, and a thriving gallery district provide a downtown anchor for cultural programming…” Of the five goals and sixteen strategies that were identified to strengthen and enhance Eugene’s cultural sector so it can contribute even more to the future vitality of the City, Goal V most relates to downtown: To integrate arts and culture into the fabric of downtown Eugene and other neighborhoods as part of a comprehensive strategy of revitalization. The basic strategies of which are summarized below. ? Enhance public art and culture as a critical catalyst for downtown livability and economic vitality ? Support downtown housing ? Support high quality design, including buildings, streetscapes and signage as downtown draw ? Integrate arts and culture into the fabric of downtown as part of a comprehensive revitalization strategy ? Integrate arts and culture into planning and development activities in Eugene’s downtown ? Establish approaches to cultural development in the downtown that dovetail with community priorities ? Enhance Eugene’s physical environment through public art in downtown and throughout the City ? Enhance Eugene’s urban environment through the use of architecture and streetscape design, signage, public spaces, and other amenities 15.Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plans Date: 2006 Context: The Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan was adopted as an aspirational and guiding document for the City as it conducts long-range planning for parks, recreation and open space. The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains, among other things, goals, strategies and performance measures. The projects identified in the Project and Priority Plan are one way in which the strategies identified in the PROS Comprehensive Plan can be implemented. Public Involvement: Council Involvement: The PROS Project and Priority Plan was adopted by resolution of the Eugene City Council on May 22, 2006. [The City’s adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and LUBA remanded the City’s adoption. The PROS Comprehensive Plan has no legal effect as a land use plan; however, it continues to serve as the City’s aspirational and guiding parks, recreation and open space document.] Downtown Related Outcome: The Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Project and Priority Plan is an action plan that contains specific project information, including a timeframe for project implementation and cost estimates. To aid in reviewing the plan, the project information is structured in several different formats including tables organized by planning area and tables organized by project type. The Project and Priority Plan also includes maps showing existing and proposed resources for each planning area and for the entire city. ? Provide significant riverfront and urban open space in Courthouse District ? Acquire land to expand park blocks ? Develop pedestrian improvements to link downtown with Skinner Butte, Shelton McMurphey Johnson House and riverfront system 16.Mayor’s Committee on Economic Development Date: 2004 Context: Mayor Torey, with the support of Council, created the Committee on Economic Development with the charge of a) evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of City policies for achieving Eugene’s broad economic development goals and b) providing specific recommendations as to how to best achieve those goals. The Mayor asked the Committee to move quickly to agreement on a few actions that could be accepted by Council and could have immediate effects on economic development in Eugene. Public Involvement: The Mayor appointed 14 community members whose backgrounds represented a diversity of opinions in Eugene. The Committee also formed subcommittees to discuss specific economic development tools, including urban renewal. Council Involvement: Council approved the Mayor’s request to establish the Committee on Economic Development and accepted the recommendations from the Committee. Downtown Related Outcome: ? Support Urban Renewal as an important tool to positively impact economic development and as an active redevelopment strategy. SECTION C – OVERARCHING COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES & VALUES 17.City Council 2009 Vision & Goals Date: 2009 Context: The Mayor and Council meet annually to establish the overarching vision and goals from which to determine City policy. Public Involvement: n/a Council Involvement: Approved May 2009 Outcome: The Mayor and Council created the vision and goals listed below. ? Vision: Value all people, encouraging respect and appreciation for diversity, equity, justice, and social o well-being. We recognize and appreciate our differences and embrace our common humanity as the source of our strength; Be responsible stewards of our physical assets and natural resources. We will sustain our clean air o and water, beautiful parks and open spaces, livable and safe neighborhoods, and foster a vibrant downtown, including a stable infrastructure; Encourage a strong, sustainable and vibrant economy, fully utilizing our educational and cultural o assets, so that every person has an opportunity to achieve financial security. ? Goals: Safe Community – A community where all people are safe, valued and welcome. o Sustainable Development – A community that meets its present environmental, economic and o social needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation – A community where arts and outdoors are o integral to our social and economic well-being and are available to all. Effective, Accountable Municipal Government – A government that works openly, collaboratively, o and fairly with the community to achieve measurable and positive outcomes and provide effective, efficient services. Fair, Stable, and Adequate Financial Resources – A government whose ongoing financial resources o are based on a fair and equitable system of revenues and are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services. 18.Growth Management Policies Date: 1998 Context: In the Fall of 1995, the City of Eugene began the Growth Management Study. The purpose of the study was to conduct a comprehensive review of existing growth management policies shaping our city and propose options for future growth strategies in the Eugene. Public Involvement: Since its beginning, the study involved the community in every stage of the process from "Setting the Agenda" for the study to community-wide discussion on growth management actions that can be enacted in the future. A series of community forums, city-wide circulated tabloids and surveys were used at each phase of the project to ensure widespread citizen involvement. The adopted policies result from extensive public involvement that included a series of workshops, city-wide distributed tabloids, and random sample surveys. At the last phase of study, Making Decisions, the community was asked its preferences of four scenarios and a series of actions that could be taken to manage growth in the future. The preferences of the community are shown in the Scenario Results, Future Actions, and Demographic Data. These documents can be accessed from the links in the right-hand column. Council Involvement: On February 2, 1998, the Eugene City Council unanimously adopted 19 Growth Management Policies to guide how we manage growth in the coming years. Outcome: The adopted policies are to be used to guide City work programs, the Budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Though not adopted, a set of Example Actions were included that show potential means of implementing the adopted policies. Policy 1 – Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary more efficiently. Policy 2 – Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development. Policy 3 – Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown using incentives and zoning. Policy 4 – Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes. Policy 5 – Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane County) and other nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban growth boundaries. Policy 6 – Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. Policy 7 – Provide for a greater variety of housing types. Policy 8 – Promote construction of affordable housing. Policy 9 – Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill, and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards, open space and housing maintenance programs, and continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs. Policy 10 – Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts. Policy 11 – Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity, design, safety, and convenience of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation systems. Policy 12 – Encourage alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles through demand management techniques. Policy 13 – Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the City's most congested roadways and intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation. Policy 14 – Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and services, except that the City will examine ways to subsidize the costs of providing infrastructure or offer other incentives that support higher-density, in-fill, mixed-use, and redevelopment. Policy 15 – Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development. Policy 16 – Focus efforts to diversify the local economy and provide family-wage jobs principally by supporting local, and environmentally-sensitive businesses. Direct available financial and regulatory incentives to support these efforts. Policy 17 – Protect and improve air and water quality and protect natural areas of good habitat value through a variety of means such as better enforcement of existing regulations, new or revised regulations, or other practices. Policy 18 – Increase the amount and variety of parks and open spaces. Policy 19 – Expand City efforts to achieve community-based policing. 19.Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI) Date: 2006 Context: To help more local firms understand and benefit from the growing field of sustainability, in June of 2005, Mayor Piercy, with support of the Eugene City Council, launched the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI). The purpose of the SBI was to identify, support, and propose deliberate steps that, by 2020, can make Eugene one of the nation’s most sustainable mid-size communities. Strengthening the economy by finding ways to support businesses and expand quality jobs that use sustainable measures is the heart of the strategy. The SBI seeks to build upon the City of Eugene’s sustainability goals and to capitalize on the community’s long history of outstanding involvement in sustainability activities. Public Involvement: Mayor Piercy named a 16-member citizen Task Force to lead the SBI. She charged the group with obtaining ideas from the public and sustainability experts and then making recommendations to the City Council, the private sector, and other local organizations for retaining, growing, and creating Triple Bottom Line sustainable businesses and jobs. A 50-person Technical Advisory Committee assisted the Task Force. Students and faculty from Resource Innovations at the University of Oregon staffed the SBI. The Task Force developed their recommendations through an extensive outreach process involving over 750 people. This involved two “open houses,” meetings with numerous community organizations and two online surveys. In addition, the Task Force held roundtables on the following 12 key topics/sectors. Council Involvement: The SBI Task Force Report was accepted by the Council on October 23, 2006. Outcome: The Task Force’s recommendations for the City are listed below. ? Publicly commit to sustainable practices and to businesses that produce sustainable products and services ? Establish an Office of Sustainability within City government ? Establish a Sustainability Board or Commission ? Adopt a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2020 and develop a Climate Action Plan ? Purchase and use sustainable practices and local products and services ? Adopt sustainability criteria for decision making, beginning with triple bottom line policy assessments and purchasing policies ? Adopt goal and develop strategy to achieve zero waste ? Adopt sustainability indicators and a measurement system ? Educate employees ? Provide incentives and awards and remove barriers ? Form partnerships Support the efforts of the Northwest Energy Education Institute at Lane Community College o Convene capital improvement partnerships for large projects such as new hospitals or sports o arenas, with the goal of making those projects more sustainable from the inception 20.JEO Regional Economic Development Principles Date: June 2009 Context: The framework for designing our next economy is a multi-step process and will include input from industry experts, representatives from various organizations/affiliations and outreach to the broader community. The Joint Elected Officials Economic Development Task Force (ED Task Force), composed of members from the City of Eugene Council, City of Springfield Council, and Lane County Board of Commissioners proposed a framework for a regional economic development plan to better position our regional economy to take advantage of economic opportunities that align with our area’s assets and values. The ED Task Force recommended the framework to ensure continued and timely progress on creating a regional economic development plan. Public Involvement: The public will be asked to participate in the regional planning effort this fall. Council Involvement: The Joint Elected Officials approved goals and principles for the regional economic development plan in June 2009. Outcome: The approved principles that will guide the development of the region’s next economy are listed below. ? Healthy Living – Championing businesses and entrepreneurs that promote a healthy, safe, and clean community while enhancing, protecting, and making wise use of our natural resources. ? Smart Growth – Encourage a culture of entrepreneurship and re-investment into our local community. ? Be Prepared – Develop the region’s physical, social, educational, and workforce infrastructure to meet the needs of tomorrow. ? Local Independence – Promote local businesses and entrepreneurs that lead our area to a higher level of economic independence and resilience. ? Regional Identity – Create a stronger economic personality that celebrates our region’s attributes and values.