CC Minutes - 01/09/06 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. ACTION: Resolution 1037 Acknowledging Receipt of the Annual Financial Report of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2005 City Manager Taylor noted that the independent auditor had given the City a clean audit both with regard to the general operating budget as well as the Urban Renewal Agency budget. Action to adopt the report must be made by resolution. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 1036, ac- knowledging receipt of the Annual Financial Report for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of Eugene City Council. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Remanded Provisions of Appendix B to Ordinances Nos. 20325 and 20326; Amending Ordinances Nos. 20235 and 20236 by Adoption of a New Appendix B; Repealing Section 5 of Each Ordinance; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Attorney Lidz provided an overview of the remanded ordinance, reminding the council that in July 2004 it adopted two ordinances related to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) facilities and planning. The first ordinance amended the portions of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) related to public services and facilities, and the second ordinance amended the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). He said the textual changes made by both ordinances were the same, which was why it was possible to amend the two ordinances in question with a single new ordinance. Mr. Lidz noted the appeal of the ordinances adopted in July 2004 by the Lane County Home Builders Association to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which subsequently rejected most of the associa- tion’s argument but remanded the ordinances for a more detailed description of Project 300, described generally as the WPCF treatment project. LUBA also suggested two other projects be reexamined to determine if a more detailed description could be developed. Mr. Lidz said the ordinance before the council addressed the issues raised in the LUBA remand. Mr. Lidz referred the council to pages 141-142, 144-145, which reflected the revised text to be added to the Metro Plan and the PFSP. He emphasized that only the project descriptions, not the projects themselves, were being changed. Because there were no changes to the projects, the changes to the descriptions were based on the 2004 record. No new information or record was needed. The public hearing was not required by the LUBA remand or Oregon land use law; rather, the Eugene City Charter required the council to hold a public hearing before it adopted an ordinance. Mr. Lidz said the proposed ordinance would have an immediate effective date to allow the projects in question to proceed immediately. The projects were needed in order to meet the requirements of the City’s National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and other federal requirements. The projects would take years to build and had been delayed by the litigation. The land use amendments approved by the council were not effective because they could not be acknowledged by the State due to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting