City Council - workshop

. . you

You good afternoon everyone and welcome to the July 9th 2026 urban renewal agency meeting and Eugene City Council work session Thank you for joining us in this hybrid meeting format today for work sessions like this one There is no opportunity for public comment and those wishing to access the meeting can do so by watching the live stream available on our website the broadcast on Comcast channel 21 and or by calling into one of the funders listed for this meeting on the public webcast and meetings materials page of the City of Eugene website. Thank you all again for joining us today. And I now call the July 8th, 2026 City Council work session to order. And I will turn it right over to City Manager Hirayama to introduce our first topic, which is a work session on intergovernmental relations and preparation for the 2027 legislative session.

Thank you, Mayor. This work session, as you recall, is in response to the May 27th work session where you had asked for additional time to discuss the preparation of the 2027 legislative session, so we are doing just that today. IGA Manager Ethan Nelson is here to give you a brief overview of the preparation process and also really to allow you to ask questions, but more importantly to allow for a discussion about those priorities, and there's no action for you today. It's just informational only. So I'll turn it over to Ethan.

Thanks, Jenny. Ethan Nelson, the City of Eugene's Intergovernmental Relations Manager. Good afternoon, Mayor Knutson, city councilors. Won't reiterate what Jenny just shared regarding the May 27th work session, but just really briefly, I've got an agenda lined out for today. I think the big takeaway is that think about this critically in terms of how various moving parts come together to create works of art. We have council strategic work, then there's a priority setting, and then there's an understanding of what the art of the possible is related to legislators and their needs and wants. And so we kind of work to really pull all of that together, and that's what we'll I'LL SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME GOING OVER BEFORE I TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE MAYOR. AS YOU SPENT TIME ON YOUR RECENTLY YOUR WORKSHOP ON COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLANNING, I DO WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK TO LOOK AT THE 2023-2026 STRATEGIC PLAN AND SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE URGENT COMMUNITY NEEDS. And so from the standpoint of the city council, you're navigating a lot of issues across the community. And by taking time to really focus in on what the strategic priorities are for the organization and the community, that helps to give really clear direction and clarity for communication purposes, but then also how different functions of the organization can then strategically implement those priorities. there's a lot of alignment that comes out of spending this time to then give us direction, and specifically related to our state and federal policies and the priorities that we go for. And that then spends, that allows us to increase our coordination, because we're really clear on alignment and purpose, and then we're able to communicate that across a wide variety of channels, populations, stakeholders. And so we want to just spend some time to really recognize that and I think in our May 27th presentation, talked about the $45 million of state and federal funds that have come through, discretionary funds that have come through in the past five years. And I would argue that it is predicated upon the council's strategic direction and clarity in that purpose. So it really kind of cuts away a lot of the noise and tells staff what you want and how to go get that done. And then I think that that helps to then roll on into a very tight agenda that we had last year for the 2026 state priorities. And we started out with recognizing that we might be in a tight state financial budget situation, and so we really focused in on protecting the allocations, appropriations that the state had given to us related to Clear Lake Road infrastructure. We were also seeking funding for the Eugene Airport, but then protecting, jumping on down, protecting funding for the statewide shelter program. The financial position for the state was not as dire as early forecasts were, and we were able to not only secure the funds that we had brought in earlier in 2025 for Clear Lake, but also get an additional $5 million for the project and secure $1 million for the airport expansion current projects that are going on. So that's what really this clarity and alignment results in, a realistic, focused agenda that we can share across a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Which brings me to where we are right now and kind of the protein, not the meat and potatoes, but the protein for today's discussion. In preparing for the legislative session, You know, we really try to take a look at what is possible, what are the priorities, and then also this concept of what is ripe. And so we, you know, I think we started with Clear Lake Road about three years ago, and it wasn't ripe. Once the state started to really focus in on the legislature and the governor's office to focus in on economic development, then Clear Lake Road investments became really quote-unquote ripe. And so that's where we are is we're taking time engaging with legislators, engaging with counselors, executives, staff from across the organization, content experts, and all of those stakeholders are all hearing from the community what are priorities, what are things that folks are really interested in. We continue to share this with our IGR committee on a monthly basis and have conversations there. There's multiple touch points with city council related to the development of this agenda. The 27th was one. We came back early in January as we were putting forward what the agenda was going to be today, and then we'll also be back in November with a proposed agenda for the next year. And so really trying to map out that there's a robust engagement process and also time for city council to deliberate, weigh in, and then ultimately be making the decision and direction as to what your state policy and priorities and federal policies will be. So with that, I'll probably just leave this on up as the graphic that we can refer to if there's questions, but I'll turn it back over to you, Mayor Knutson, to lead the discussion.

Thank you, Ethan, for that presentation. And I do think that this timeline is helpful, not just in thinking about this year, but I'm presuming that also the outline of this essentially is consistent year over year, adjust to the short session, but also it was useful thinking about future long sessions.

Thank you.

Questions from council? Councillor Kuczynski.

Thank you, and thank you again for the timeline and for all the work that you do to help ensure that Eugene's priorities are seen and heard at the legislative level and at the state level, and I guess the federal level to the degree that we're able to do that. One of the questions I had is, I KNOW THAT THE SESSION CAN MOVE PRETTY FAST, AND THE, YOU KNOW, YOU DO A VERY GOOD JOB DURING SESSION OF UPDATING US AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE PARTICULAR BILLS, AND WAS WONDERING IF THERE ARE Opportunities given that sort of timelines can be challenging for council to do more direct advocacy surrounding the priorities like opportunities for counselors to testify or to connect with legislators In a way that would be supportive of that and if so, how would we we navigate some of those pieces? Willing and able to support in that way

Thank you, Councilor Kaczynski, for the question. And in regards to what I'm hearing you say is engagement, where are the opportunities for engagement? And there's generally a good amount. I'll take a step back. One of the things that we spend a lot of time on is developing what you have seen and what you will continue to see is the State and Federal Policies Guide. And that really gives staff, myself, but staff and the organization guidance as to what the lane is that council wants us to be in terms of an advocacy place. And that lane can sometimes be fairly broad because a lot of bills will come in. I mean, last year there was over 3000 bills or last long session, 3000 bills. And so those will get down kind of weedy. And so we really take that lane and we say, all right, what, the council's given us this direction, what is our position on the wide variety of bills? And so that helps give us a lot of efficiency in our process, and I think also efficacy, because there's times when we say, well, we don't have clarity on this, and it's not a priority for council, so we're not going to weigh in. And we need to, kind of the concept of prioritization is you're saying yes to some things and saying no to others. And so I think that just to recognize that the guidance that council gives us is very important to be able to have an effective process. Related to then having representation in Salem during the legislative sessions on areas that have been identified as priorities for the Eugene City Council, we do a lot of times two different ways. One is that... Mayor Knutson will be engaged, or previous mayors, as the chief elected official in the organization and be able to come and represent what the city council's and the community's position is. And why that is is that in Salem, a lot of times legislators want to hear from the chief elected official. Mayors, the title carries a lot of gravitas and weight there. And so that's one of the reasons why we will spend time briefing the mayor and asking her to come on up and be involved in that, whether it's virtually or whether it's in person. Secondarily, we also then spend a lot of time with our IGR committee members as the standing body for council related to state policy and federal policy pieces. We'll look to council members. In the past, Councilor Yeh and I have driven on up, chatted about items. She's given testimony and driven on back. And we always have that opportunity to really focus in on where if there's a counselor that needs to attend, we look to IGR first and foremost simply because that's kind of how councils work or the operating agreements structure that. And then next, we then will identify if there's a counselor who maybe the issue is within a specific counselor's ward, and we can have that as be very cogent to the city council's position, have that counselor up there representing. And so really to work on that. And the takeaway that I'm hearing is that you have interest in when there's opportunities to be engaged and continue to work provide those and add that on into how we tactically approach bills in Salem.

Thank you. Councillor Clark.

Thank you, Mayor. And Ethan, thank you for the presentation on previous priorities and all of the information. My question is about is this conversation supposed to be about future priorities and how or what we see or not see covered in previous session? Do I have that correctly or not?

I think this is as an opportunity for engagement. And so if today you're interested, I mean, I think it's open to what each individual counselor is interested in bringing forward to the table.

I very much would like to see our future efforts directed at a priority level or at a priority item that I don't see represented on a previous list there. And that is infrastructure necessary to create more housing in our community. I know that we had a, it's been a number of years ago now, but from our planning department, Heather made a presentation to us one time about housing construction and quoted a particular statistic that I thought was interesting. And it's certainly no longer true now that we have infrastructure and opportunity for development in the Crow Road area. And some work has been done there, but I, from my perspective, I would like to see us, the statement that was made was that 48% of our City's current buildable land supply is unbuildable because of its lack of infrastructure. That was a significant number when she said that and it was a while ago and there have been updates, but I'd like to see our priorities reflect A stronger ask of the legislature for assistance with infrastructure so that we can make more housing possible in our community. Can you help? And I, I don't know all of the things that staff would identify as necessary for that to happen or if there are legislators who are already carrying efforts in that direction. Can you give me some information based on what, you know.

Yeah, Councillor Clark, as I understand your question related to the city's prioritization for seeking funds for housing infrastructure that would support housing development. Is that accurate?

Yeah.

Uh, yeah. So if I'll just kind of help to the body, uh, remember that in 2024 we received, uh, funding from the legislature, I think it was roughly six, five, six.

Yeah.

That's, uh, um, for the Crow Road. And, um, and that again, back to my, what I kind of, uh, introduced the topic on is, um, the housing infrastructure conversation at the state level was ripe. And so a lot of discussions about permitting reform, broad, strong voice from League of Oregon Cities, Association of Oregon Counties, real estate contractors, everybody involved in the production of housing said we need money going into infrastructure. I would suggest that that is still a ripe opportunity from my perspective.

That's why I'm bringing it up.

Yes. And so I think that we can, that continues to be a priority for cities. I was just looking at our, um, our policies we continue to seek funding for housing infrastructure it's just is that where the legislature is going to be and in the past two years it's been focused in on economic development and so infrastructure for industrial lands hence the reason why we receive funding yeah so we'll continue to have that and what I'm hearing from you is incorporated into our proposed priorities for this next year And then IGR will be able to weigh in in that and ultimately council will. And so this is exactly what the sessions, this work session is for.

I just wanted to put in my two cents and I appreciate that. I think that's one of, if not our highest priority to make sure that we have at least the capacity to build that which we already know we need. Thank you.

Councillor Keating.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Ethan, for the update. Ethan was introduced as the IGR manager. And I long mistakenly, and it's probably going to continue to be a mistake of mine, introduce Ethan in the building as the IGR director. Because you really are, or a conductor, I've not said that, but you are a conductor or a director. of a most important document and plan, and you implement it with aplomb, this council's direction. So thank you for the work. Since we are putting our two cents, and with inflation, and because I have more than just two cents worth of suggestions, I'll put in my two, four, six, eight cents, if you don't mind. I have... I want to expand on some of these priorities and also share with you at least some of mine, and I hope that I'm not alone in advocating for them. And so in no particular order, I would like to see us, especially since the legislature's effort was referred and then failed in May in regard to increasing revenue. in the transportation bucket. I would like to see our city lean in for local support around increasing investments around traffic calming, safe streets, expanding on our Vision Zero GOALS WITH THE LEGISLATURE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT POOLS OF RESOURCES THAT MIGHT OPEN, BUT I'D LIKE US TO LEAD WITH OUR TRAFFIC CALMING, TRAFFIC SAFETY APPROACH. AS BUBBLED UP IN OUR LAST TIME THIS BODY MET JUST LAST WEEK. I'D LIKE TO SEE US STRENGTHEN PRIVACY LAWS IN THE DIGITAL SPACE. I would love to see us advocating not only for the protecting the full fundament of the statewide shelter program, which is laudable, I appreciate it, but if we could drill down specifically around our safe sleep sites and celebrate the fact that there are safe sleep sites in our community that bolster a 70% rehoming rate as part of those community-oriented safe sleep sites. And I was gonna say finally, I guess it's not final, because I'll certainly have more thoughts, There's a statewide imagination library component that is, as I understand it, shifts the burden, not burden, shifts the responsibility from our local library's foundation or friends for raising revenue around the imagination library. Because it's now a statewide program and it's... it's done so well here in Eugene, I would like for us to lean in and advocate for protecting those resources and expanding on those resources so every Oregon child has access to the Imagination Library. With appreciation, thank you.

If I may, I just want to respond really briefly on the transportation piece. I think the conversation this year is going to be around a bipartisan transportation package. And this was what the Governor's Transportation Policy Committee met yesterday. And so there's a lot of interest in getting something through. What I think City of Eugene's position and many cities' position is gonna be is to preserve the existing revenue split of state transportation dollars. And so right now it's 50-30-20. 20% coming to cities. And so any new revenue sources that come on up, we want to ensure that those have at least that same split. And then that aligns within our local control policies, which then say those dollars come to the city and it's to every jurisdiction, and then it's up to the jurisdiction as to how they prioritize those. And so your comments related to safe streets and traffic calming and Vision Zero, I think that that's where the focus will be on REVENUE, GETTING THE FUNDS TO COME TO THE CITY, AND THEN THE PROCESS IS LOCAL CONTROL AND THE CITY COUNCIL BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE THROUGH A BUDGETARY PROCESS WHERE THOSE FUNDS GET ALLOCATED. SO... MAYOR, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW-UP?

COUNCIL, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU IN JUST A MOMENT FOR ANOTHER ROUND, BECAUSE COUNCILOR KOJINSKI ALSO HAS A ROUND TWO, AND COUNCILOR GROVES ALSO IN THIS ROUND, AND THEN I'LL ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AS WELL. SO COUNCILOR GROVES.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Ethan. I just want to say I believe I'm in my third year of serving on IGR, and I really appreciate what you bring to the table and how you help educate us so we can be more effective and how you advocate for us. as really a lobbyist at times. Getting to what Councilor Keating was speaking to, I'm still longing for a refresh of our strategic plan, and I know we had a workshop where we were just talking about that. I still don't believe that the old plan is reflective of Council as much as it was the Cast of Thousands was at the last council strategic planning process a number of years ago. So I would like us to strategically talk about how we prioritize the various issues that are before us. I think you've named some good ones, but I mean there's other ones as well. And how we get that into a priority package that will actually help the IGR when we're meeting and trying to get into the more granular stuff. Right now it just feels like we're still taking some pretty general swipes at things, but I think if we can actually get in and prioritize some of this stuff, it would help Ethan, and I believe it would help our committee be even more effective. So I just wanted to share my two cents on that. Again, appreciate the work. There's many smaller issues that we've discussed as well, but I appreciate you highlighting the big ones. So with that, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Ethan. I just have a couple of questions and some are to lift up conversations that we've had at the IGR committee meetings. But before getting to that, I just want to highlight yesterday we had essentially a showcase and a tour and launch event at Eugene Airport that certainly connects to a significant legislative priority for this upcoming session. And the reason I mention it, that's a transformational project for our community, but an extraordinary opportunity for five counties served by Eugene Airport. So it is a great collective win for a large portion of the population of Oregon, and I know will be a focus in this session. Why I mention it is because it's also a really good example of something that I think was part of the inspiration for this conversation, which is really working upstream with our city capacity and priorities and needs and with our legislative leaders and partners to put together proposals that we are completely and fully engaged behind, not just the City of Eugene, but a whole host of partners. And in thinking about this timeline that we typically work with each year, I'm thinking about where the work that is led into that project sort of fits with this type of flow and how important it is for us to have early engagement with our legislative partners around the development of what will be not just our priority concepts for a session or priority bills, but are their priorities as well and working through how we can support and be both steady in that process, but also responsive to some of the timelines that have been raised by other Councillors, which are incredibly challenging, especially in the short session. Long session seems slightly better, but really not much because there's so much more going on. I'm wondering if you could just speak a little bit to that process. And, you know, Eugene Airport is unique, but I think there's something from it in terms of working with our city teams, working with Representative Nathanson, working with our Senate colleagues, our federal colleagues as well in building of that proposal and how that might connect to the work that we do on other priorities.

Thanks, Mayor Knudson. If I just reiterate what I'm hearing you ask is there's really big I always call them big, hairy, audacious goals with big items that we're going to go after. And that takes a lot of coordination. And part of that coordination is understanding how do we align with legislators' priorities and work in partnership with what a legislator might be interested in completing in a specific session or even long term. Is that accurate?

I think that is accurate and looking at the calendar year and when we need to know that they need information from us.

Yeah, okay. What I would say is that it depends and this is why I would go back to the strategic plan or the guidance from council. is that every legislator will have a set of priorities, and some of them overlap with city of Eugene operations or areas of jurisdiction. Some don't. And so those are priorities that will come on up, and every year I have a conversation with the legislator, and sometimes they're really open and they share those, and sometimes they keep them really close to their chest because they, They're playing the game of politics of getting a bill introduced, and as soon as you introduce it and you get language, that's when there will start to be critiques and pushback. And so they're very mindful of the political process up in Salem. And so sometimes those concepts come on out, and we say, oh, yep, That one has got overlap with our operations or our interest. How do we work proactively? An example is about six years ago, City of Eugene staff, including Alyssa Hansen, our planning development director, and I, and Lauren Summers, one of our assistant city attorneys, we started working really collaboratively with the speaker at the time she was the housing chair. because she had a lot of land use and housing-related policies that were counter to what the adopted policy of the city council was and or city code. And so we were really trying to be engaged up front to say, how do we land this so that it's implementable that we can have conversations with council in a real time, as Councillor Kaczynski had shared, that it's a very compressed schedule a lot of times during a legislative session. So we really spent a lot of time building up those relationships so that we could land in a position that was aligned with the council direction, aligned with city code, And also was not necessarily counter to what one of our local legislators, who is now Speaker of the House, had interest in seeing move the community forward. And so it takes a lot, and I give that example because it's multi-year. And so there's really never a starting point because you're constantly, it's just every year there's something coming on up. Related to the timing of the schedule, The best time for us, and so I'm kind of switching now in terms of discussing the schedule timing. Right now, and so in the spring, as we lead on up to the long session, there are statutory deadlines for getting concepts into the legislature, into the legislative council to have those turned around. We're monitoring those. There's there is an adopted process within the council's operating agreements related to if a counselor has a specific item That you that or wants to put forward how to move that and then if the council wants us to take a position on legislation there's a There's process outlined in the council operating agreements and so we follow those. And with the recognition that we've been, the city staff has been bringing forward regularly throughout that whole calendar process. If there are items, bring them to us and we'll start working on them because It takes time to move from one counselor's interest to then become a position of the council to then we need to be able to get a legislator to say, yeah, that's a priority for us. The past couple years, threats to public officials has been that process. Council gave us direction, and then we started working on that, and we met with Senator Prusansky, and he took it up as, yes, I will support that as a priority bill. And so we then had a legislative vehicle to then advance that council priority. But it took. It takes quite a while. And so Eugene Airport has been something... Airport's been working on, staff has been working on, council's been having direct discussions, and now we're just, the pace to prep for the 2027 session has increased to the event yesterday where we have a lot of momentum across all of the stakeholders that are identified in the graphic on the screen. And we're all moving in direction, but we're also wanting to make sure that this body is able to feel as if you're steering the ship.

Thank you, and I'll also say as we head into round two with Councilor Kuczynski and Councilor Keating that it is a pleasure to advocate for the City of Eugene in Salem, and I think our conversations, we have fantastic partners in our legislative delegation and beyond. who we have a chance to connect with up there and I think that we do really good work. So thank you for that effort and connecting us into that work. Councillor Kuczynski and then Councillor Keating and then we'll likely move to our next agenda item.

Thank you, and if we're talking about priorities that we would have and we would like to see, have discussions for a lot of the things that would be on my list are either already on this list or I feel like would come out through strategic planning. But one thing that I would like to highlight is that there is currently a cross JURISDICTIONAL WORKING GROUP SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT AMBULANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES AND FINANCIAL STABILITY AND OPERATIONAL STABILITY FOR AMBULANCE TRANSPORT. THAT'S AN AREA THAT HAS BOTH IN EUGENE WITH THAT BEING A DISTRESSED FUND MANY YEARS FOR US AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS IN THE AREA, LIKE I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM ARE ANNOUNCING NOW THAT THEIR LEVIES DIDN'T PASS AND SO THEY'RE HAVING TO REDUCE AMBULANCE SERVICE. so I know that group is trying to come up with some various methodologies that that could help address that problem and I know that some of them will probably involve legislative advocacy and so wanting to highlight that that would be something that I would like us to have some further discussion about as that group recommendations of things that could help both Eugene and Eugene Springfield fire and all of the fire districts in the

I've got it listed on down to school Dive a little bit deeper on into what's happening really today ambulance transport service and financial stability and Make sure that that's added in for the discussion Council Keating Thank Thank You mayor

And piggybacking off what you said earlier, Mayor, we do have an embarrassment of riches in regards to the experience and effectiveness of our legislators here in Lane County. I'm a little biased, but they're pretty great. I would add to the conversation we had earlier Incentives for building up and not out, protecting communities UGB, urban growth boundaries. There really is, as I understand it, a dearth of those incentives for a commercial on the bottom and residential on the way up. And if there are statewide fixes to that, that would be great to see the city of Eugene lean in. In addition, supporting increased investments to animal services broadly, statewide and locally, and increased support for a diverse array of revenue options would be something that I would long for and applaud and champion. On the state priorities that you've shared with us, Ethan, support statewide property tax reform. Questions, how realistic is that? And do you see that, not to get too granular, but is it changing assessed value versus actual value? And recognizing that whatever reform is realized, it's almost certain to be challenged at the ballot box. How realistic is it taking a bite at the apple or taking a swing at the ball in this legislative session?

Councilor Keating, related to the last question, and I took down the items that you had shared, and I'll incorporate those into our conversation back with IGR, so I just want to make sure you heard that. Related to the property tax, I think it's going to be really difficult to have a discussion, a deep, meaningful discussion discussion at the legislature related to local government and property taxes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and it doesn't mean that we won't get an interested ear and probably some work sessions where at least the conversation can be brought on up and have those discussions and the need for that. Related to the states, the state government is focused in on, as you said previously, a transportation tax policy. or transportation funding to under to fund Oregon Department transportation all the services that are those revenue sources provide. Additionally, the state is going to be navigating the impacts of the federal HR1 in regards to healthcare and Medicaid and Medicare services and a reduction of those federal funds to the state that will impact services to community members across the state. There will also be navigating education funding reform. So these core elements of what the state, and then an element related to the health care system itself, which is the state has a lot of jurisdiction over that. And so those tend to be where a lot of the focal time and effort is in terms of what's in the state's bailiwick in terms of what they have to work on. And then there will constantly be local government saying, hey, we need to take on a discussion on property taxes, and how do we do that? And so we've had those conversations in the past. League of Oregon Cities has been working on a revenue reform work group. Assistant City Manager Matt Rodriguez sat on it. I think there's a seat for Jenny to be on, our city manager now to be on that ongoing conversation that's helping statewide organizations. Representative Nathanson, she passed a bill in 2025 that was a work group related to property tax reform and revenue reform. And so we will continue to be able to kind of take bites at the apple to really get a better handle on what is possible, the art of the possible. with the recognition, as you said, is that there's likely not a ripeness to that conversation at the state level for this next biennium budget. But we need to continue because it is, again, one of those long-term conversations that a lot of stakeholders need to be educated and engaged in so that then when potential pathways come forward that they're there.

Right. Would vacation homes be, well, I'm gonna answer my own question. There are smaller bites of the apple that we can get at, so I appreciate the perspective, Ethan. You mentioned healthcare. The Health Plan Governance Board, the Oregon Health Plan Governance Board will be making the recommendations this fall to the legislature for a 2027 implementation of a universal health plan. So it's the Universal Health Plan Governance Board, the UHP,

whatever the acronym is.

May I request the, because you mentioned healthcare and prioritizing potentially through the IGR process, that our IGR team review those recommendations and see if there's anything that makes sense for our city to get behind, please. And finally, kind of wearing my Human Services Commission hat alongside Council President Leach, the state has invested $14 million in a behavioral health stabilization center. Though it might be on the other side of the river, that's going to be a game changer for our community. And I suspect there'll be increased investments that are desperately needed. We're talking about an alternative to jail or an alternative to the emergency room for folks who are having an acute mental health crisis who can go and be stabilized and get access to services for up to 10 days. Could you talk about investments in that space and how priorities would look from this council's perspective, please?

Yeah, Councilor Keating related to the Lane County Stabilization Crisis Stabilization Center. I just refer that our priorities include one related to supporting behavioral health, state funds for behavioral health and mental health and recovery facilities. And so the stabilization center tends to be right now the item that we will support. And so last year we supported it. Salem and I have routine conversations with my counterparts at Lane County to say what's going to be the ask what's the need this year and that's partially so that we can coordinate if we're not asking for funding from the same pot of money or we'd be in competition but also so that we can provide adequate and appropriate support for their efforts to secure the required funding to move that asset forward.

Thank you, Ethan. Thank you for staff for this presentation today and update and the opportunity to have more discussion about legislative priorities and our IGR process. My closing observation will just be that I think there could be opportunities for us to think about before session, after session, connection points between this body and our legislative priorities. representation, that delegation of partners and leaders and could be a benefit to our community to think about how to create more of those opportunities for connection and discussion of what's been accomplished and then where we all are thinking about heading in the years ahead. With that, APPRECIATIONS, THANK YOU. I NOW CLOSE THE JULY 8, 2026 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AND CALL THE JULY 8, 2026 URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY MEETING TO ORDER. THANK YOU, STAFF, AND I'LL TURN THE AGENDA TO AGENCY DIRECTOR HARAYAMA TO INTRODUCE OUR SECOND TOPIC TODAY, WHICH IS A WORK SESSION, AN UPDATE ON URBAN RENEWAL AT THE RIVERFRONT.

Thank you. So staff today will provide three riverfront urban renewal updates, and the agency board is going to consider actions to move two of these projects forward. The two projects are parcel four affordable housing project, which is around 29 units, and the other is riverfront connections, which basically focuses on improving the connection between 5th Street and City Hall parking. So with that, I'll turn it over to staff.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Agency Board. I'm Amanda D'Souza, Development Programs Manager in the Community Development Division, and I'm here with Will Dowdy, Community Development Director. We are here today to give you an update on the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. When we last spoke to you in February of this year, we highlighted a next batch of projects you'd soon be considering that were focused on connecting many of the exciting developments we've seen come to fruition over the last few years. Including completion of the park and plaza and the first two residential buildings and the relocation of City Hall into the building we're in now. We highlighted the importance of this intersection at Fifth and Ferry as a key opportunity to connect these four components and introduce the new projects that aim to cultivate that connection. Today, you'll be hearing updates on those three projects. First, you'll hear an update on the parcel eight food hall. You'll be considering action on that project at a future work session. Then you'll hear updates and consider actions on two other projects. The first is the parcel four affordable housing project, and the second is a project that we introduced in February and have since titled Riverfront Connections. So we'll start with Parcel 8, which is located just south of City Hall and adjacent to the Riverfront Park and Plaza. As you know, the community has long desired a place to eat and drink while looking out onto the river. In the Downtown Riverfront concept plan, Parcel 8 has been designated for those uses. In February, we share that Atkins Dame had begun working with local restaurateur, Colby Phillips, to bring this vision to reality. If you don't know Mr. Phillips, you might be familiar with his work. He's known for Eugene's Beer Garden and Springfield's Public House. In May, the agency entered into a non-binding agreement with Atkins Dame and Colon LLC, which is Mr. Phillips' business, to move forward with the food hall concept, something that would combine a variety of vendors and foods into a single gathering place. The proposed project we're exploring entails the Urban Renewal Agency developing and constructing the building, and then subsequently leasing it to Colwyn LLC, who would operate the food hall. Right now, we are working with Colwyn and two local firms to refine this concept, including developing more detailed designs, cost estimates, an operating model, and what the ownership and lease structure would look like. Later this fall, we'll bring the proposed project to you, which is when you'll consider the funding allocation agreement structure and any timing or deadlines for the project. We know how important the site is for the downtown riverfront and as a gathering place for the whole community, and we hope to bring a proposed project that is both feasible and reflects the community's desires. The next project I'll touch on is the Parcel 4 affordable housing project. Parcel 4 outlined here is just southwest of City Hall and is currently a temporary gravel parking lot. Atkins Dame's initial intention for Parcel 4 was a market rate housing project. However, the current financial landscape for market rate housing continues to be challenging. In February, we let you know that in order to continue build out of the neighborhood, Atkins Dame pivoted their plans to pursue a second affordable housing project in partnership with Homes for Good on this site. In February, the agency board and city council approved a property swap in which the agency will purchase back parcel 5 and carve off parcel 4A in order to square off the parcel 4 property and make it developable. That swap is still in the works, but the agency board's approval meant that the development team had the assurance they needed to start pre-development on the project. Today, you're asked to consider action on two decisions needed for the parcel four project to move forward. The first is about a request for financial assistance to help make the affordable housing project pencil. And the second is about a change of use on an adjacent property to support the project. I'll start with the project basics. It will be structured very similarly to the parcel two affordable housing project. It's a smaller parcel, so the project itself is smaller. It would have 29 units in a four story building, and the units would be affordable to households earning 60% of area median income or less. This is an early rendering of what the project will look like. To orient you, this drawing is looking northwest from the corner of Fifth and Ferry. The development team estimates that the total project cost is just under $17 million. The majority of the funding would come from the state's lift funds and low-income housing tax credits. They would get a private loan, and then ERD, which is Atkins Dames Development LLC, would make an in-kind contribution related to the adjacent parking lot, which I'll talk a little bit more in a bit. Today, the development team is asking for $3.11 million of Riverfront Urban Renewal funds. This would be about $107,000 per unit. For comparison, the agency's contribution for the Parcel 2 project is $100,000 per unit, and that land is provided at no cost, and that project will have 75 units. This $3.11 million ask is the first action you'll be considering for Parcel 4 today. The next proposed action is about a property called the Viaduct Open Space, which is located just west of Parcel 4. Currently, about two-thirds of the Viaduct Open Space is a temporary gravel lot. The western third is existing stormwater infrastructure. The deal points and our development agreement with Atkins Dame state that they would pay for, construct, and manage open space on this property. Up until recently, the plan was that this would be developed as a privately owned and publicly accessible recreation area. However, as neighborhood development progressed and the housing landscape changed, Atkins Dame changed their plans for parcel four. Their original plans for market rate housing assumed that the development would have tuck under parking, but this shift to affordable housing means there's a desire to maximize the density on parcel four, which means using the whole site for the residential building, and there's a larger parking need. To support this, they would like to use the undeveloped part of the viaduct open space as parking to support the parcel four tenants. Staff is supportive of this change. Given the nature of the viaduct open space property, there are very limited open space amenities that would make sense for the site, especially with the new park and plaza just steps away. In addition, accommodating parcel force parking needs on the site relieves some of the parking pressures anticipated on the downtown riverfront. To allow this property to be used as parking, the agency board would need to approve the change of use. If approved, the development team would build a permanent parking lot that serves parcel for residents. The stormwater infrastructure would remain and the lot would be built to code and in compliance with the riverfront design guidelines. I'll summarize the two decision points you're considering today for the parcel for affordable housing project. For financial assistance, you're considering whether the agency should allocate up to $3.11 million to support the project, or you could choose to allocate another amount or not allocate funding at this time. For the open space, your options are to approve the change of use to accommodate parking on the property or to not approve the change at this time. Last month, the River Guides, which is the advisory committee for the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, considered these requests and recommended approval of the funds and change of use. With that, I'll hand it off to Will to talk about the third project, Riverfront Connections.

Thank you. Good afternoon. On the screen, I've got a photo of one of the events that activated our incredible Riverfront Park last year. And on the right, there's a snapshot of the path that people found to access the public parking that serves the neighborhood. In February, we talked about this opportunity, the connection between Fifth Avenue and the city parking lot, the generator that blocks access between them, and other connection opportunities between City Hall and the rest of the Riverfront neighborhood. We have begun looking at this as a single project, simply called Riverfront Connections, that aims to do precisely that. From the February work session, you're familiar with this aerial photo of the riverfront with the generator circled and sitting right in the middle of the neighborhood between the park, the city hall, Heartwood, proposed affordable housing site, parking lot, and restaurant site. And the arrow that shows the intuitive path of travel that is frustrated by the equipment and its concrete enclosure. These other images show how the generator is perfectly placed to plug up this connection that like a cork in a bottle. Since February, staff has been working with Walker Macy, that's the landscape architecture firm that designed the riverfront park, on the feasibility of moving the generator and stitching together the neighborhood. Working with engineering partners, they reviewed options for moving the generator to different locations on the city hall property and recommended that a simple move is in fact best. And you can see the proposal to move it approximately like this. This is diagrammatic, of course, but something moving it just to the east. This maintains the operational need for City Hall. The backup generator serves City Hall. And it's the most cost effective, especially considering the many subsurface utility lines running through this site. And it accomplishes the intent of opening up the connection. We think there's an opportunity to phase this work. Moving the generator and opening the connection between the parking lot and the rest of the neighborhood is the most important step to make possible the development of parcel eight as a food and beverage site and parcel four as affordable housing. Connected to this is optimizing the secure parking lot at City Hall to accommodate the generator without losing the parking capacity needed for building operations and also a chance to incorporate the triangular parcel five into the neighborhood design. All of that makes sense as a first phase. Beyond that, the work to better connect City Hall to the neighborhood and improving the parking lot flow and configuration for community use could be a later phase or phases. We estimate that this first phase might cost around $2 million, but there are significant unknowns about this project, so that could be high or low. Because of this uncertainty, the proposal for you to consider today is that if you would like to move forward with this project, you could approve funding for design work and cost estimating for this initial phase. We'd put together the consultant team and take, we would, upon a vote, put together the consultant team and take the design through schematic and design development, coming back to you with a better cost estimate before starting in on the permitting documents or the bid set. You could then make an informed final decision about moving forward with the capital project or not. So if you as the agency board would like the Riverfront Connections project to move forward, the board is asked to make a decision about allocating up to $500,000 of urban renewal dollars to continue project refinement. Alternately, you could choose to allocate a different amount or not move forward with this project at this time.

I'll finish up with a little bit more context about how these requests fit into the overall district. As you recall, Council's 2024 Amendment to the Riverfront Arbor Renewal Plan raised the maximum indebtedness or spending limit by $75 million. This table shows the estimated allocation for each of the categories of eligible activities and how much has been spent or allocated in each. You'll note that some spending and allocation has occurred since the amendment, primarily in the existing activities category, which came in a little higher than expected because of the investment the agency board made in the parcel to affordable housing project. As we discussed during the amendment process, any of the urban renewal funds can be spent in any of these categories. The 2024 estimates were only for planning purposes. Currently, we estimate that $44.64 million is available for allocation. This is based on actual spending and allocations and estimated future commitments. If the funding is approved today, an estimated $41.03 million will remain for future district use. I'll end with a slide that shows all of the actions that you're considering today, and it recaps the River Guide's recommendations. With that, we're happy to give it back to you and answer any questions that you may have for us. Thank you.

Thank you, staff. I'll now open to council discussion, council questions. Councillor Kuczynski, and then Councillor Keating.

Thank you and thank you for all the work and the presentation and you answered like half my questions without me even having to ask them, so thank you for that. I am excited about both of these projects. I think having more housing and especially more affordable housing in our community is a high priority for us. And I've had multiple people be like, okay, how do I actually get to this riverfront park that's so amazing? And so improving that connection I think is gonna be very valuable. Talking specifically about the request with the parking and changing that use to parking, how many parking spaces are we talking about there? Just sort of ballpark?

Their drawings right now show about 20, and it involves also some tandem parking. Obviously, that'll get more refined as the process goes on, but it'll be about probably 20 to 25 max.

And I know it was previously set up as open space or designated for open space. And you talked a little bit about open space under a highway type viaduct being not the most ideal open space. When it was originally kind of put in those drawings as open space, was there any sort of like, this is the thing we want to have there? Or was it more just sort of vague?

There are various ideas that have been floated around, but mostly what it was is there's this viaduct that runs through this site and this viaduct that runs through the neighborhood that we're trying to build through the connection that we're trying to make to the river. So what are ways to mitigate the less than ideal urban condition? So people have talked about basketball courts could go in there. People have talked about skate parks, and they usually show the pictures of the one that happens to be in Eugene of a good way to make use of under... of a space that's serving something else, an underpass. So I think, so things like that have come up, but at the end of the day, it has mostly been about mitigating the impacts of the infrastructure.

Okay, thank you. So it wasn't like there was, you know, someone really had their heart set on a sculpture garden or something there, I don't know. Okay, thank you, that's helpful.

Some hearts set on a sculpture garden. Many hearts in the city of Eugene. Councillor Keating and then Councillor Groves and Councillor Yee.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Will and Amanda. I appreciate that there's an opportunity to make investments in affordable housing, but I remain consistent in my advocacy for mixed use, affordable and market rate in the same buildings. So we don't have these segmented unaffordable housing versus affordable housing. more vibrant from my perspective for all layers of the economic map for folks to be living together. So that's just me editorializing. You mentioned that that space, and I think it's the aforementioned piece that Councilor Kaczynski was just talking about, that viaduct. Is that the piece, Amanda, that you said was privately owned and was going to be publicly accessible open space, or is it that adjacent current green space right now that's been, I might be getting my parcels confused, but is it the piece that you alluded to that said, you said it was privately owned or it was intended to be privately owned and publicly accessible open space with underground parking. Is that that viaduct?

There was no underground parking. So this is the parcel. It's a gravel lot right now. It's next to the stormwater infrastructure that has the big neighborhood sign advertising it. So it's the site with the gravel lot. So there's no green space right at the moment.

Noted. Okay. That's helpful. Where did I get the underground parking piece?

I mentioned the original plans for the Parcel 4 site, which now we're pivoting to affordable housing. The original plans were that that building would accommodate tuck-under parking. So that's where the parking would be. Basically, you park underneath the residential uses.

I'd be far more enthusiastic about tuck parking, underground parking. Why was the suburban rental agency told something at one point about underground parking and it's now shifted to be?

Tuck under parking is not underground parking. It is like ground level parking. It is just underneath. So it's the first floor would probably have an entranceway and parking and then the upper floors would have the residential parking.

That's what's on the table today?

That's what their original plans are. Now that takes up a significant amount of space on the site. So now they're shifting towards the residential building taking up the entire site with no parking so that they can maximize the number of units around the site and using the space underneath the viaduct to provide the parking to support the project.

Understood. I have some issues with that. I have a larger issue. with the half a million dollar request that would essentially move, this is my interpretation, and correct me if I'm wrong, relocate an existing generator that's functioning 10 to 15 yards just to get a flow from the south up the north side of City Hall in which the existing parking lot, parking spaces are meant for traffic to come Southbound. Is a half a million dollar request really the top priority right there? When I've been on that space, I've seen the flow come from Fifth Street into that area for the world athletic events, for the ribbon cutting, just naturally having my dog down here. I like the flow. I like that there's not a lot of traffic flowing through that area, and it would be flowing right by City Hall. Like, sell me on this, please, because if this vote were to happen right now, I would be a loud no.

Sure, I'd be happy to talk about it further. So the proposal is a half a million dollars, which I think that's a number that's... THAT PROVIDES SOME SPACE WITHIN IT. IT'S NOT BASED ON AN ACTUAL ESTIMATE, BUT IT'S MORE THAN ENOUGH NEEDED TO DO DESIGN WORK AND THE ESTIMATING WORK. BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THE MOVEMENT OF THE GENERATOR. SO IT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION. The idea would be that for approximately $2 million, and again, this is just kind of estimate based on other things, and the goal would be to get you a better estimate so that we can talk about real numbers and so that you can make a more informed decision. The idea of moving the generator is to create a clear connection between two major amenities in the neighborhood, one of which is a large employer, which is this building, City Hall, AND ALSO A CIVIC BUILDING, BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, AND ALSO A LARGE PARKING LOT. AND TO CONNECT THOSE INTO THE FABRIC OF THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PARK, THE PLAZA, AND THE RESTAURANT SITE PARTICULARLY. AND SO IT'S TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING FROM AROUND THE COMMUNITY OR AROUND THE REGION TO COME TO THE THE PARK AND PLAZA FOR EVENTS FOR RECREATION OR COMING TO THE RESTAURANT SITE TO BE ABLE TO EASILY FIND PARKING WITHOUT THE NEED TO RECREATE MORE PARKING SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE USES. AND SO ONE OF THE GOALS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING IS TO use the assets that you have for as many different uses as you can. And so we have this really great parking lot at City Hall. There's a really great time of use difference between the needs of the office building and the needs of the kind of the nights and weekends for the park and the restaurant. THE PRIME USE TIMES. BY CREATING A BETTER CONNECTION BETWEEN THOSE, THE RESTAURANT CAN BE CONFIDENT THAT THEY'VE GOT THE EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND EASILY IDENTIFIABLE PARKING TO SERVE THEIR CUSTOMER BASE WITHOUT HAVING TO BUILD THEIR OWN. So that clarity, that opportunity is an important part of making the whole neighborhood work better and to make it so that this, and I'm sure that all of us have this experience of places where you say, I'd love to go there, but it's just so hard. And someone says, oh no, it's easy. And you say, no, I've been there, it's hard. And that mental friction that happens when the legibility is not there in the neighborhood is the kind of thing that deters people. And we have such a great asset here. This park and this whole neighborhood was really intentionally built so that it could welcome in the whole community. And so this is one of those opportunities. I really wish I could go back in time and just move that generator when they did it. But the fact is it's right there and it's right at that great connection point. And so... That's the proposal, is to move it and make it better.

All right, that's helpful, thank you. Fifth Street has made it easy, and there's folks, there's only three restaurants now in that food court at Fifth Street. I'm not sold that this is the highest and best use of our dollars for a food court when there's a food court literally half a mile, not even, a quarter of a mile away, thanks.

Councilor Groves, and then Ye, and then Zelenka.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you very much for the presentation. I'm assuming that the pictures we're seeing here that shows the configuration of the generator, that's just all. It'll actually get this, the access could change on that. Okay, great, thanks. Can you speak to whether it's more expensive or the same to have mixed income housing in the same building. I've heard from some developers, they say it costs more, but what is your opinion on that?

The biggest thing I've heard is that opinions vary and there's lots, and I've only heard compelling arguments from everybody on this, on every side. And so I think that there are some people who point out the obvious benefit of having people who are at different incomes living together in the same place, which is reflective of the way a community works. I've heard other people talk about, the high quality affordable housing developers that we have in Eugene. And one of the things that makes them high quality is the ability that they have to tailor their services and their building management to serve the people who live in those buildings. And they can do that effectively by having some sameness, at least from an income perspective, within the people who are choosing to live there. THERE'S, I THINK, SO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ALL EXIST. THERE'S A SIMPLICITY FROM A STATE FUNDING PERSPECTIVE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON STATE PROGRAMS LIKE THE LIFT AND THE LIHTC, AND I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S AT PLAY IN THIS PROJECT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS, BUT THE STATE FUNDING SOURCES PUSH A LOT OF THE PROJECTS TOWARDS SERVING SPECIFIC INCOME LEVELS.

And again, my question was purely to the cost where we're having a hard time getting any buildings developed in Eugene. I'm not questioning the social benefit to that. As far as underground parking goes, how high is the water table? At what depth do we hit the water table on the riverfront?

It's, we have explored underground parking. There is underground parking currently in one of the buildings that's built. So there's an opportunity for it, but it is something that the developers have to pay attention to.

So basically just be one floor underground at most?

I believe so.

What does that do to construction stability for seismic being a post and beam structure rather than a foundation or slab?

I think it just means that it's part of the mix that they have to deal with. I don't know exactly how it changes it, but it certainly has, anytime you're digging down that far, it has structural ramifications.

It does add cost. Okay. I think that's all I have for now. I mean, I'm generally in favor of what you're proposing. I think we need to move ahead and get construction going where we can. Cost of materials and labor is obviously, and the cost to borrow money is affecting our lack of success. or at least impacting our success in other areas of our downtown and the riverfront. So whatever we can do to kind of help nullify that, I think it's going to help us see the development that we all long for.

Thank you very much. Councillor Yee.

Thank you. So first of all, I have been excited about this second affordable housing complex. I remember back many years ago, the complex got moved a few times. At least once, it got moved further. So it's kind of nice to have this new one. It's a little closer to the river, a little closer to the park. So I think that it's very nice development. in these plans and nice to see. It would be nice if the parking was under and we had more open space, but oftentimes we're looking at compromises, right? And what we can afford versus what is perfect, right? So that's a compromise I'm willing to make. So I did have one question following up what Eliza was asking about. So are they converting the whole lot or just most of the lot?

They'll be converting just what's currently a gravel parking lot. So the stormwater infrastructure that's there now will remain.

All right, excellent. And then with the generator, I have to say I kind of have to agree with Councilor Keating. It seems like one of those, like, it'd kind of be maybe nice, but not necessarily essential. And... I'm expensive, and I'm not sure if it's worth it when I think about we are not done with this area, and I want us to have as much flexibility to support future projects as we can. This just doesn't seem to rise to the level of being that important. If we ended up at the end and we had some money left over, this would be the kind of project I'd be like, okay, sure, but I have to be careful. At this phase, unless someone can again sell it to me, it just doesn't feel like the right time to be sinking this kind of money into it. People can figure out there's a parking lot there and walk over, I feel like, relatively easy for several million dollars worth of cost. That's kind of where I'm at, just to make sure you understand where I'm at. Okay, I think that's it though.

Yeah, thanks. I agree with Counselor Yeh. The affordable housing project is great. 29 units for people, 60% of AMI and lower. That's exactly what we need. And affordable housing requires financial assistance. And the market provides zero affordable housing. We've got zero from the marketplace. So the only affordable housing we get is affordable housing that we subsidize. So if we want affordable housing, we have to chip in. I was in favor of having the vast majority of the urban rural dollars go towards housing. So this fits nicely with something I can support. 3.11 million, about 18% of the total cost of about 17 million seems appropriate and consistent with past practice. So I think that that makes sense. And yet again, we're talking about parking. Jennifer Smith, take note. I am okay with the change in use of the adjacent parking lot for parking for 20, 25 spaces. Maybe you can refresh our memories about underground parking is substantially more expensive than surface parking. Like what's the numbers, three to four times the amount?

The latest number I heard was $100,000 per space.

But I mean, versus a service lot, which is like, what, 20?

Or I think for something like that, it could be less.

Yeah. So it's like five times more expensive, which is why we don't do underground parking very much. The open space, by the way, also, there was talk of the dog park there, Councilor Keating, which I was in favor of, but plans last change, I think, for the better. We're not going to spend any urban renewal dollars on this parking lot, correct? Correct. Okay. All that makes sense to me. On the connections part, things have changed, I think, for the better. The problem is this legacy location of the generator and the change in the uses of the lots. So moving the generator will allow the Ferry Street to go through and connect the two parts. But more importantly, it creates the accessible parking for the restaurant, because right now there isn't any, except for the street parking, which every time I've gone by there, it's full.

If that's a question, yes. There's no plan to the accessible parking for the restaurant.

Yeah, so this would be the parking lot. It would be accessible, of course, for after hours. But I'm not sure what the $500,000 is for. That seems a lot for planning. At $250 an hour, that's 2,000 hours. That's a hell of a lot of planning. And there's this – on page 21 of the IAS, there's this list of improvements that could be included in this riverfront connections, including – Physical improvements to increase safety and comfort, parking and mobility, open space improvements, public facilities. What's that list for and how does it relate to this $500,000? Thank you.

That's a good question. So that list is a list of reasons why this is eligible. This work is eligible under this plan. So it's not that we are trying to... It's not that we'd be looking at ways to accomplish these things with this project. It's to say that these are different categories within the urban renewal plan that authorize or identify eligible activities. And this one seems to check all of these boxes. So that's why the list is there. The $500,000 is... is more money than is needed for the project. So the intent is not to spend $500,000. And so that would, I guess, be an opportunity for the agency board, if you so choose, to put in a different amount of money. The intent was to provide a round number that would allow us then to go and contract with a landscape architecture firm, probably an owner's representative to manage the project for staff and then engage with cost estimating, whether that was through a contractor or with a cost estimating firm. So it is expected that the work would end up costing that much money.

That would be just for phase one, putting in the road, moving the generator, realigning the parking lot. Does that include the east parking lot that's secured behind the gate? It does include that.

designing that okay it's changing all of that it's the design of all of that so it seems okay thank you thank you staff i have a couple of questions and i just want to make a couple of observations and and one is that because of the relationship in space between these two projects i think it would have been helpful to see a footprint of the proposed affordable housing relative to the generator because of the way in which that generator's current position when that affordable housing project is built sits a little bit like a giant pod at the front door of the building from the direction that these renderings are showing. So I just want to observe that, that there's a natural relationship between these two questions and the transportation network serving this affordable housing project, but that's not immediately clear from the graphic or the visual information that we have. I also just wanted to reiterate that it's easy to forget now and I talk with people all the time about the history of this site and many people have already forgotten the almost 100 years that it was a razor-wired surrounding condition and a publicly owned piece of land with our utility but completely publicly inaccessible. And so redesigning the access into this site is a really important part of making. all of these investments something that the entirety of our community can easily enjoy. I just want to observe that I support the change of use for the parking in part because of the conservation of the stormwater and the landscaped edge that's at the western end of this. I think the pedestrian experience from Fifth Street to the riverfront is a really important aspect to protect and support with the development of these projects incrementally and there's a softening that's offered by the location of that green infrastructure that I think is really important. I also think that public art could be a really important part of making the Viaduct experience more beautiful and would love to see us have a conversation about the integration of more art on this site and that's another of the many hearts that were expressed in the dreams for the downtown riverfront. I lastly just wanted to of course reiterate my support from our previous conversations about this affordable housing project. It sounds in many ways to be similar in terms of the design, the basic proposal for this project to a project that is currently under construction and almost complete in the Whitaker. Not same development team, but similar plan in terms of the project. And also will be similar to a future in which the next Home for Good and Atkins and Dane project is completed on the north side of Forth, where we have essentially market rate housing on one side of the street and affordable housing as a sibling on the other. And that is another type of mixed income outcome that is really, I think, important to our community and to the values we have with this project. So I support this work. I do have a really quick question, though. Is $300,000 enough to do this early planning?

That should be.

Thank you. I would suggest if that is a feasible path and other counselors would support it to amending this request to $300,000 as there are other adjacent projects and we may be able to find some efficiencies through connection to that other work. Not seeing any further, oh, Councillor Koscienski and Councillor Yee also? Councillor Koscienski.

Yes, just speaking of the value of moving the generator and creating a better connection there, I was literally on the phone with a resident last night who was asking me how someone in a wheelchair would access the existing riverfront park. and what would be the best methodology for someone who has mobility challenges to get to the existing park and to be able to get there. And the best path I could give her was to park in the city hall lot and then kind of go down by the fountain that's right there and then up the river path. And so And I don't think that that slope is ADA compliant. I could be wrong. And so moving this generator and building a better connection between those spaces would, my impression, be improve accessibility, particularly for people with mobility challenges, to our existing park that we've invested a lot in as a great asset for our community and make that asset more accessible. I'm assuming that that connection would be ADA accessible.

It would be, and I appreciate you bringing that up.

Councillor Yee?

Yeah, well, I certainly appreciate Councillor Kuczynski's comment. That is a very good point. I'm wondering, do we have a photo in any of these slides of how close this thing is to the new building? Or if anybody knows? THE MAYOR MENTIONED IT'S RIGHT BY THE...

IN THIS ONE, IT DOESN'T SHOW THE PICTURE OF THE BUILDING, BUT THE BUILDING BASICALLY SITS ON ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THE BLUE AND GREEN PARCELS. So that's about, given the width of a parking space, that's about 10 feet to the corner between the building face and the...

It is really close. Oh, okay.

I was going to say, on Google Maps, it's about an inch.

Okay, well I appreciate everyone's comments. I like to try to learn from my colleagues and consider different points of view. And the fact that it is not going to in fact maybe cost $500,000 to see if a thing is worth moving forward, it does feel a little bit better. I will just say in general, this entire development is right on our river path, right? And I would hope that as these things move forward that we invest just as much time and energy into how we can make it easy for people to walk and bike to these things as we do the millions of dollars to make cars comfortable. So I'm just gonna put that out there. But thank you, I appreciate all this information.

Thank you, council. Seeing no other discussion, I'm gonna turn to our agency vice president to put a motion forward.

Thank you, and I wanna make sure that I am looking at the right items, because I'm seeing,

Councilor Krasinski, if you could, there's been a couple different discussions and a couple different ideas being floated, so I want to help guide you to the motion you would like to make. Okay. And then there may be amendments or substitutions to that, but are you looking to approve both of the proposed projects, which would be the parcel for affordable housing and the riverfront connections, That would be just the first motion, move to approve. If you're looking to approve the river, or make the motion for the riverfront connections with a reduction from 500 to 300, okay, let me just hand that to you real quick.

Does it look like the first motion included both funding pieces? All right, thank you. Move to approve the use of urban renewal funds for the projects as provided in attachment B to this AIS with the change of $300,000 from $500,000 for the riverfront connections project.

Backing. Any discussion from Councilor Keating?

Thank you, Mayor. I intended to make a substitute motion just to separate these two. And so with the help from legal counsel, I have a substitution, and I'm gonna ask colleagues to please support the motion, even if you're supportive of both the projects, just because I think it's healthier to have these teased out rather than together, because I want to have a debate on one element thereof. My substitution would be to move to approve the use of urban renewal funds for the parcel four affordable housing project, which is attachment B in this AIS.

I do not hear a second from.

I'll second it for the sake of discussion.

Thank you. The second. Any further discussion from council?

Thank you. Speak to the motion, please. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I'M HEARING BROAD SUPPORT FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PIECE AND I'M THERE. I WANT TO SUPPORT IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I think whether we talk about the 500 or the 300, that's a debate that I wanted to have separate from this. So I would just ask colleagues, whether you're supportive or not, please give the thumbs up to this substitution so we can advance this affordable housing project. I appreciate the... attention to detail. There were some pieces I had some issues with. You've helped me see the light, Will, thank you. And so I think this council is ready clearly to support the affordable housing project pieces that are attached to AIS. I just want to have those separate debates. So I'd ask colleagues to support this motion, please.

Thank you, Councilor Keating. Council, I just want to observe, we have five minutes remaining in our regularly scheduled meeting, and I would like us to not rush through or leave one of these unaddressed simply for running out of time. If I could have a motion to extend the meeting by ten minutes. So moved.

Do we have to?

Yes, sorry, when we complete the substitute motion conversation. Thank you, Vice President Kuczynski. Any further discussion from Council related to the substitute motion? Then I'll take a vote for this motion. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five, and all opposed? One, Councillor Zelenka?

I'm in support.

Okay, so the motion passes with a vote of six to 7 to 0. Councillor Clark shifted over as well. Thank you. And so we have a substitute motion separating the two.

It doesn't separate it. So right now, the motion that you need to vote that has now been substituted, and there will be an opportunity to make a separate motion for your riverfront connections. So the motion that is now on the table as substituted is the one made by Councillor Keating for the Parsifal or affordable housing. And that needs to be voted now.

And then there will be a parking lot.

And the parking will be made separately as a separate motion. Because it wasn't a motion to divide, it was a motion to substitute. And so the substitute motion on the table is a motion to approve the use of the urban rental funds for the parcel for affordable housing project.

I'll now take a vote for this motion. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. And the motion passes seven to zero. Thank you, council. City Attorney, is now the moment to extend our meeting, that we've completed that motion?

Certainly. I move to approve, extend the meeting by 10 minutes.

Second.

Thank you, Council. Returning to our discussion, Councillor.

Well, you need to vote on the motion.

Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. Thank you, City Attorney. All in favor of extending our meeting by 10 minutes? Thank you, Council, by seven to zero. We are extending for 10 minutes. And now returning to Councillor Kuczynski.

Move to approve the use of urban renewal funds for the riverfront connections project as described in attachment B with the change of the amount being from two $300,000 from $500,000.

Second.

Thank you, any further discussion from council? Councilor Keating?

Thank you, Mayor. Council Vice President might understand that WE'VE DROPPED THE ALLOCATION REQUEST $200,000 BUT THIS MOTION STILL INCLUDES THE PARCEL 8 RESTAURANT SITE, CORRECT? IT'S STILL THE PIECES THAT WERE OUTLINED IN OUR RIVERFRONT CONNECTIONS OR IS THIS MOTION JUST TO DROP THE PRICE TAG FOR THE STUDY OF MOVING THE GENERATOR FROM 500 TO 300? I'M CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT OF THE MOTION IS. MY APOLOGIES.

Chancellor Kuczynski.

My intent is to, or the intent, I believe the intent of this motion and staff and city attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, is to authorize staff to contract with landscaping firms and estimating firms so that they can come back to us with a firm plan and cost estimate for how much it would cost to move the generator and build a healthy, accessible, pleasant connection between our existing parking lot and both the riverfront park and POTENTIAL FUTURE ASSETS THAT MAY BE THERE.

OKAY, THANK YOU. FIND THE TWO PARKING LOTS. POINT OF INFORMATION, THEN. AM I TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S NO ACCESSIBLE PARKING AT THE HARTFORD AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, THAT FOLKS WHO HAVE MOBILITY CHALLENGES, THAT MOVING THE GENERATOR IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN ACCESS THAT RIVERFRONT AREA AND THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY NOT IN COMPLIANCE?

I'll let Steph answer that question on street parking.

We have parking available through the neighborhood and there's accessible parking through there. And there is accessible parking at the city hall in the parking lot. But the path of travel between the parking lot and the riverfront park is roundabout. And so this would provide a much shorter and a better connection for anyone who has mobility issues or anyone who's coming. So it's not about trying to get back into compliance, it's about trying to improve the access for community members of all accessible.

Thank you. Council now, Councilor Zelenka. I'm sorry, Councillor Clarke, I believe you might be second, but I can't see your hand. I can see it now. Councillor Clarke and then Councillor Zelenka.

Will, for clarity, the $300,000 is to come back with an estimate. That's the cost of getting the estimate. Am I correct where the price of moving the generator could be multiple millions?

Correct, and it's not about just getting an estimate. It would be about taking the project through a design phase. So it's intended to be about moving the project forward in a way that gives you a chance to have a go-no-go decision prior to spending the more significant construction dollars, but it would be about taking the project forward, doing a lot of design work, so that the project is primed and ready to go. But we just didn't, not knowing some of those details, we didn't think it was, we had enough information to ask you to authorize the construction work, if that clarification makes sense.

It does, but I want to gauge how much sticker shock I'm going to get by saying spend 300 grand to give us that sticker price. What within round numbers is a reasonable expectation of the cost of moving that generator? I know that's the purpose of spending the 300, but do you have round numbers?

Do you have guesstimates about 2Million dollars that would. that would include moving the generator, creating the driveway and sidewalk connections between them, reconfiguring the secure parking lot south of City Hall so that when the generator moves into there, it is compliant with all codes and also that the spaces are optimized to not reduce the dependence that the building has on the spaces there, and then also to incorporate parcel 5, which is part of that land swap into the neighborhood. So it's kind of it's it's everything from the generator to the southeast and cleaning it up and having that be a part of the neighborhood. Thank you, Sir.

Councillor Zelenka and then Councillor Groves, and then we'll move forward with a vote.

Yeah, so just to make sure I got it right. So it's the design work of multiple phases of this project, which includes moving the generator, reconfiguring the behind the gate parking lot, incorporate that new wedge, redoing that, figuring out what that would cost, putting in a new street, new accessible sidewalks, and then designing and reconfiguring the larger parking lot. All of that is the project. And that would be what you bring back with a design and an estimated cost approximately in the ballpark of $2 million. So it's not just $2 million to move a generator at 15 feet.

Sorry, that's not quite right. The piece that that we wouldn't be doing is taking the design as far for the larger parking lot. So for the the. Yeah, for the large parking field that's over 100 spaces west of City Hall, we would make sure that we weren't precluding the work that would be there. I think we would probably have a sense of how much that larger and later phase would cost, but we would not be taking that part through design development. So we would just be taking that first phase, which is the southeast portion of that project from the generator. the connection point and the area south of City Hall. We would take that through design development.

Yeah, I didn't mean the entire parking lot. I meant that little corner where the generator is needs to be redesigned as well, and that would be included, not the whole parking lot, which could be optimized in a different way, but that's a different project. I think I'm clear what we're voting on.

Councilor Groves? Thank you, Mayor. Will, would it be possible if this passes when you bring it back to have it broken down by element?

As much as possible, we can try to do that. Sometimes there's pieces run into each other a little bit, and so, but with that caveat, we can certainly try to do that.

I mean, just to make it as clean as you can, so at that point, we could also back a piece out. Yes. That was one question I had. The second question, is there a viable way to make all areas down there ADA accessible without moving the generator?

I can't get you that answer. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. I would say that the simple thing I would say is that it would, the accessibility would be significantly improved, but I believe that we would be, I believe that it's possible to have it without moving the generator. I guess I'm getting outside of my area of understanding, so I don't want to make it.

No, I can appreciate that. I'm just trying to get an idea. I also know when you move big pieces of equipment like that, frequently something breaks.

Yeah, I think Councilor Kuczynski said it well, which is that whether or not the accommodation is there It's complicated to explain it to someone about how to navigate this. Sure, I can appreciate that.

Thank you, staff. I will also clarify to the public that the Riverfront Park and the Downtown Riverfront are accessible, do meet ADA compliance, and we are open for people to enjoy them all the time. But we're thinking about the future and wanting to make this a welcoming place. I'll now take a vote for this motion. Councillors, all in favor? One, two, three, four, five, six. And all opposed? And the motion passes with a vote of six to one. Because that previous motion has passed, I'll now turn to our agency vice president to put a second motion forward related to the change of use.

Move to approve the amendment to the project deal points proposed in attachment B to this AIS and to direct the agency director to revise the disposition and development agreement to allow the use of the viaduct open space for parking, parcel for parking.

Any further discussion from the agency? Oh, sorry.

Second.

Thank you, Councillors. I'm used to our Vice President being our second. Seeing no further discussion, I'll now take a vote for this motion. All in favor? Five, six, seven, and the motion passes with a vote of seven to zero. Thank you, Council, and thank you for our extra time today. Thank you to staff for this presentation. That concludes our agenda, and I now close the July 8th, 2026 Urban Renewal Agency meeting, and we are adjourned.