Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/10/08 Public Hearing M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon March 10, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. . Teri McComb, Monroe Street, Eugene, discussed the City’s procedures for assigning plots in community gardens. She expressed concern with individuals having multiple plots when people were being turned away. She felt there was an entitlement attitude displayed by some long-time gardeners, which resulted in an unfair situation. She suggested appointing three people to help resolve problems with demand for the limited space in community gardens. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, said he was an optimist, but expressed concern with the City’s lack of improve- ment in numerous areas. He complained about problems with the council, the gas tax, news media, the district attorney, the police auditor, the police department, the courts and downtown redevelopment. He was saddened that Councilor Bettman was leaving the council and unhappy with her choice of a replacement. He was pleased that Councilor Taylor would remain. Nathan Fendrich , Firwood Way, Eugene, said he was a frequent user of Skinner Butte Park and expressed concern about safety hazards to pedestrians by cars driving too fast on the road to the top of the butte. He said the speed limit should be posted very clearly, but there were currently no signs. He also said a restroom facility at the top would be greatly appreciated. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, Eugene, spoke to the issue of control. He said that attempting to control something, such as traffic or land use, usually resulted in an increase in the problem. He suggested that instead of controlling the central part of the city, controls should be placed on the perimeter and if there were no controls over the central part, the people and developers could develop downtown Eugene the way they wanted to. He supported Beam Development and its efforts to save historic buildings in downtown. Charles Biggs , 540Antelope Way, Eugene, said he had recently become aware of the limitations, covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) imposed on a piece of property. He related an incident in which the owner was attempting to divide a lot, but that was prohibited by CC&Rs. He said the owner brought the issue to the Planning MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Division’s attention, but the division could not or would not take action. He thought the City should help preserve property owners’ rights instead of forcing the owners to take legal action. Diane Searle, Jeppesen Avenue, Eugene said she was from the River Rock Glen Association and explained provisions that would be in place to assure affordable housing issues were addressed in the event property was sold. She said the City would have a lien against properties assisted with affordable housing funds and if a property was sold it would either remain affordable housing or the funds would be repaid. Paul More , 2586 Potter Street, Eugene, discussed the need for bicycle lanes on the uphill side of streets in the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard area. He said he would be submitting two petitions requesting the bike lanes. He said that environmental issues made the use of bicycles important. He said it was unsafe to require bicycles and motor vehicles to use the same lane and the roads should be wide enough to accommodate bicycle lanes. He cited the width of streets and bicycle lanes in various locations throughout the City. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments from the council. Councilor Clark congratulated residents of Hannah Dell Estates on their work to make the River Rock Glen project successful. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the December 7, 2007, Executive Session; December 10, 2007, City Council Meeting; January 9, 2008, Work Session; January 14, 2008, City Council Meeting; January 28, 2008, Work Session; January 28, 2008, City Council Meeting and February 11, 2008, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Funding for Housing Projects Affordable to Low-Income Persons D. Adoption of Resolution 4933 Adopting a Second Period of Special Assessment of Historic Property Pursuant to SB 416 (2007 OR LAWS CH 718) Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Poling and Councilor Bettman noted they had submitted electronic minutes corrections. Councilor Zelenka pulled Item C. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item C, was approved unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Zelenka commended the affordable housing projects recommended for funding by the Housing Policy Board, which included acquisition and rehabilitation of rental property by St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County for homeless veterans and acquisition of Hannah Del Estates manufactured home park by its residents. Mayor Piercy commented that the City was working to retain manufactured housing as an affordable housing option in the community. Roll call vote; Item C on the Consent Calendar was approved, 6:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing 3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 4934 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 Budget Manager Kitty Murdoch provided an overview of the second Supplemental Budget for FY08. She said it was much briefer than the previous supplemental budget and encompassed changes in only three funds: the General Fund, the Community Development Block Grant Fund and the Wastewater Treatment Fund. She reviewed details of the changes as set forth in the agenda materials. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, Eugene, stated that the supplemental budget appeared to be unobtrusive at first glance, but he had some questions about the use of $65,000 to collect annexation fees. He reiterated his concern that there should be a mechanism for involving the Budget Committee in the supplemental budget process to increase public participation. Mayor Piercy closed the hearing and invited comments from the council. Council Bettman thanked Mr. Barofsky for his comments and noted that he was a member of the Budget Committee. She said she would support the supplemental budget and noted that the $65,000 would be used to process annexation requests once the City assumed that responsibility from the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Councilor Clark asked about a large volume of annexation requests recently submitted by the City on December 31, 2007, prior to abolishment of the boundary commission. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said she would provide a memorandum explaining the submission. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4934 adopting a Sup- plemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 1047 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 Ms. Murdoch stated that the transactions in the Urban Renewal Agency’s (URA) supplemental budget carried out the council’s direction to propose a financial plan for property acquisitions downtown. She said the properties to be purchased were the Centre Court Building and adjacent subsurface lot, the Washburne building and the Diamond property. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing Nathan Fendrich, Firwood Way, Eugene, observed that 25 years ago the community built the Hult Center, a world- class performing arts center. He said a few years ago the community built the downtown Library and it was time to move forward again with downtown revitalization. John Barofsky , 2010Hubbard Lane, Eugene, stated that he was in favor of downtown development and the Beam Development project; however, he urged the council to keep all costs in mind, particularly with respect to purchasing property. He noted that the supplemental budget included attorney fees and loan fees and acquisition and renewal of purchase options. He said there were many other costs as well and hoped they would not be overlooked when negotiating the terms of an agreement with Beam Development. He suggested the City consider establishing “in- house” legal counsel. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and invited comments from the council. Councilor Clark asked staff to address concerns he had raised earlier. Denny Braud, Planning and Development Department, pointed out that adopting the supplemental budget would allow staff to continue the council-directed process of acquiring the properties. He explained the purchase option process and said the timelines included provision for refund of the ten percent down payment within a 45-day period. He anticipated signing an agreement with Beam Development within that 45-day period and noted the agreement would be reviewed by the URA. Councilor Clark indicated that his primary concern was with Beam’s ability to secure tenants that would provide the project with an adequate cash flow. He said the market was changing and it behooved the City to be prudent when entering into an agreement on a project that might have appeared more certain before those changes. He felt the voters were clear in the last election, but could support the supplemental budget as long as there was still an opportunity for the City to back out of the arrangement without harm. Councilor Poling said he shared Councilor Clark’s concern and was pleased to hear there was a 45-day period before the agreement was finalized. He wanted assurance that the City had performed due diligence on the financial ability of the developer to move forward with the project and would be protected in the event the developer decided not to pursue the project. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Poling’s remarks. He asked how the City would be protected on this project. Mr. Braud replied that in previous agreements the City obtained earnest money from the buyer when the sales agreement was signed. He expected that an agreement would be signed with Beam Development prior to May 8, 2008. Councilor Clark clarified his criteria for an agreement with Beam: the level of investment from Beam in the project, creation of a better environment in downtown, increasing the tax base and the benefits to the City as a result of the project. Councilor Bettman said she hoped to see the “pits” developed instead of two public nuisances in downtown. Councilor Zelenka said the benefit to the City from the Beam project was not yet clear. He asked if the level of financial participation required of the City was known yet. He believed that any downtown development would require some level of subsidy. Mr. Braud said the sales agreement would outline the City’s participation. He anticipated the City’s role to be assisting with financing of the project through a loan, not by granting funds to the developer. He said it would constitute gap financing for property acquisition and construction. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing Councilor Zelenka related that he was impressed with Beam’s projects in the Portland area and was confident a Eugene project would be successful. Councilor Clark reiterated that his concern was with the financial viability of the project, not with Beam’s ability to rehabilitate the buildings. He noted that the Portland area developments were struggling financially because of changes in the marketplace. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 1047 adopting a Sup- plemental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency for the Fiscal Year begin- ning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. 5. ACTION: Senate Bill 111—Use of Deadly Physical Force Plan Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt the Lane County Use of Deadly Physical Force Plan. Councilor Ortiz asked if the police union had taken a position on the plan. Police Chief Bob Lehner replied that the unions of affected agencies were represented during plan development. He could not speak for the union but he had not heard any negative feedback on the plan. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Elections’ Procedures; Amending Sections 2.960, 2.964, 2.965, 2.966, 2.968, 2.970, 2.972, 2.973,k 2.977, 2.979, 2.980, 2.981, 2.933, 2.994, 2.996, 2.97, 2.1000 and 2.1990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 2.961 and 2.975 to that Code; Amending Section 2.976 and Re-Numbering Section 2.976 to Section 2.974; Amending Section 2.990 and Re-Numbering Section 2.990 to Section 2.984; Amending Section 2.985 and Re-Numbering Section 2.985 to 2.986; Amending Section 2.986 and Re-Numbering Section 2.986 to 2.987; Amending Section 2.988 and Re- Numbering Section 2.988 to Section 2.989; Re-Numbering Section 2.984 to Section 2.985, Section 2.987 to 2.988; and Repealing Section 2.992 of that Code. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Council Bill 4966, an ordinance concerning elections procedures. Councilor Bettman stated that she wanted the definition of elections expanded to include emergency elections and their application only to council-referred measures. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3) section 2.981 to allow the City Council to call an emergency election on a ballot measure only for council-referred measures, as follows: MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing (1)(b) The time for voting on an initiative measure submitted to the electors under subsection (1) of the section shall be the first primary or general election held more than 90 days after the City Recorder’s certification of the completed petition under section 2.979 of this code, unless the council calls for an earlier special election on the measure. The special election called by the council may not be held earlier than 66 days after the City Recorder’s certification of the com- pleted petition. (2)(b) An election on legislation referred to the electors by petition shall be held on the next available election date as described in ORS 221.230(1) or successor statutes that is not sooner th than the 90 day after the City Recorder’s certification of the completed referendum petition un- der section 2.979 of the code, unless the council calls an earlier or later special election on the measure. The special election called by the council may not be held earlier than 66 days after the City Recorder’s certification of the completed petition. (3) The time for voting on legislation referred to the electors by the council shall be the first primary or general election held more than 90 days after the date that council orders the legisla- tion referred under section 2.972 of this code, unless the council calls an earlier special or emer- gency election on the measure. In any event, an election on a council-referred measure may not be held earlier than 90 days after the date that the council orders the legislation referred. City Attorney Jerome Lidz noted that even with the possibility of calling an emergency election on a council-referred measure the election still had to be 90 days from the date the council referred the measure to the ballot. He explained that under State law the council could call an election at any of the regular dates during the year or make findings that there was an emergency that necessitated an election at another time. He said the amendment would limit the council’s ability to call an emergency election to council-referred measures, as opposed to initiatives and referen- dums. Councilor Clark asked for clarification of the legislative intent of the motion. Councilor Bettman stated the current language would permit the council to call a special election for a citizen referral or initiative, which was not necessary and allowed considerable discretion on the part of the council. She said there could be a council at some point that could abuse that and her intent was to limit that ability to council-referred measures and make that distinction in the definition of elections. Councilor Pryor understood that adding the concept of an emergency or special election that could be held at any time the council specified, required some additional controls on when that could be triggered. Councilor Bettman reiterated that her amendment would take away the temptation from future councils to use discretion outside of the existing election schedule to control the scheduling of citizen initiatives or referendums, thereby removing predictability and fair process from the community. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Bettman proposed a friendly amendment to amend proposed subsection 2.973(2) by in- serting a comma following the world “shall” and substituting “as soon as possible” for the word “immediately.” Councilor Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend proposed subsection (2) of sec- tion 2.993 to read as follows: “The City Manager shall publish and distribute a local voters pam- phlet for each election in which a City measure is on the ballot.” and to amend the proposed section 2.997 to delete the language: “Unless the council has determined that a voters pamphlet is not war- ranted under section 2.993(2) of this code,” and to substitute capital “N” for the lower case “n” be- ginning the word “no” following the deleted language. Councilor Bettman stated that the motion would require a voters pamphlet and removed the discretion to decide not to have one. City Recorder Mary Feldman clarified that the motion would require a voters pamphlet whenever there was a City measure on the ballot. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 3:3 tie; councilors Bettman, Ortiz and Zelenka voting yes, and councilors Pryor, Clark and Poling voting no. The Mayor cast a vote in support of the mo- tion and it passed on a final vote of 4:3. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to insert the following subsection (4) into proposed section 2.993, after subsection (3): “If a candidate for /City office wishes to publish a statement in the City voters pamphlet for an election at which no City measure is submitted for a vote, the City Manager shall publish a voters pamphlet containing candidate statements submitted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section. Candidate statements to be published pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the City Recorder not less than 70 days prior to the date of the elec- tion for which the voters pamphlet is published. If the City Recorder does not receive a candidate th statement by the 70 day prior to the election, the City Manager shall not publish a voters pamphlet pursuant to this subsection”; and to delete the language “subsection (3) of” from subsection 2.993(5), and to amend the language of the proposed subsection (3) of section 2.996 to read: “Statements from candidates for City offices, other than those statements submitted pursuant to sub- section 2.993(4), shall be submitted not less than 56 days prior to the date of an election”; and to amend subsection (c) of section 2.997 to read: “For voters pamphlets containing only statements from candidates for City Council or Eugene Water & Electric Board positions, the wards which those candidates would represent if elected.” Councilor Bettman stated that her intent was to require the City to publish a voters pamphlet if a qualifying candidate wished to include a candidate statement, even if no City measure was on the ballot. Ms. Feldman clarified that the amendment would apply to candidates for EWEB and the school board because City office candidates could always participate in the State’s voters pamphlet. She said there were budget implications to the motion. Councilor Ortiz expressed concern with the financial impact of requiring a voters pamphlet. Councilor Clark said he liked the legislative intent, but was concerned about unintended consequences and the lack of advance information about the numerous amendments. Councilor Zelenka asked how the cost of a voters pamphlet was currently paid. Ms. Feldman replied that if the City published a voters pamphlet in which EWEB candidates were included, each candidate could opt to participate and the cost was $100 per person, which did not fully cover the cost of the voters pamphlet. She calculated the cost of a MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing voters pamphlet to be about $600 per page. She said additionally each pamphlet contained approximately seven pages of non-measure related information that would need to be added to the cost and which the City had always absorbed. Councilor Zelenka asked if a candidate could opt out of the voters pamphlet if running unopposed. Ms. Feldman said that was not addressed in the amendment. Councilor Pryor used an example of an election in which a candidate was running unopposed and there were no other issues on the ballot. He asked if the City would be required to produce a voters pamphlet in that situation. Ms. Feldman said she understood the amendment would require a voters pamphlet. Councilor Pryor said he supported the intent to allow candidates to make a statement, the current wording of the amendment would require the City to bear the expense of producing a voters pamphlet if one person asked for one; there were no mitigating conditions in place to allow the cost to be considered. He could not support the amendment because it was not fiscally prudent to be that restrictive. Councilor Bettman asked if a section could be added that would provide an exception in which the council could waive the requirement. Mr. Lidz said inserting that language would return the section to its original state and allow the council discretion. Councilor Clark urged councilors to bear in mind that voters pamphlets were not for the benefit of the candidates or the organization; they were for the benefit of the voters. He was in favor of publishing a pamphlet as it was one of the least expensive ways to education voters about those who were running for office. Councilor Pryor wanted to see language that would allow the council some discretion to waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis in order to be cognizant of finances. Mr. Lidz suggested changing the period to a comma at the end of subsection (4) of proposed section 2.993 and adding the following language: “unless the city council waives the requirement.” Councilor Bettman accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. Mr. Lidz reminded the council that it could not compel EWEB or the school districts to pay. Councilor Bettman noted there was not a provision to waive a voters pamphlet if there was no agreement to pay. Councilor Zelenka asked why the language referred only to EWEB and did not include school districts. Ms. Feldman replied that Section 2.993(5)(b) addressed school districts. Mr. Lidz referred the council to relevant language in the agenda packet. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to insert a new subsection 2.993(5) to read: “Prior to the inclusion of a statement from a candidate for the Eugene Water & Electric Board in a voters pamphlet published pursuant to subsection 2.993(4), the Eugene Water & Electric Board shall agree to pay to the City the cost of the Eugene Water & Electric Board’s portion, as determined by the City Recorder, of the printing, advertising, mailing and personnel expenses associated with publishing the voters pamphlet and distributing it within the city limits. Nothing in this subsection MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing shall relieve Eugene Water & Electric Board candidates of the obligation to pay the fee required by subsection (3) of this section.” Councilor Zelenka asked how the City Recorder would determine proportional costs. Ms. Feldman said the costs could be estimated by totaling the costs identified in the subsection and dividing that by the total number of pages to obtain a per page total. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 3:3 tie; councilors Bettman, Ortiz and Zelenka voting yes, and councilors Pryor, Clark and Poling voting no. The Mayor cast a vote in support of the mo- tion and it passed on a final vote of 4:3. th Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to substitute the term “18 day” for the th term “14 day” in section 2.997. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to insert the following language into pro- posed section 2.965: “A candidate for city office must be registered to vote as a resident of the city at the time his or her nominating petition is submitted to the City Recorder.” Mr. Lidz added for the record that the sentence in Councilor Bettman’s motion should be inserted as the second sentence in section 2.965. Councilor Bettman accepted the recommendation as a friendly amendment. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Roll call vote; the main motion as amended passed unanimously, 6:0. 7. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Paving and Construction of Curbs, Gutters, Side- walks, Street Lights, Water Quality Bioswales, and Stormwater Drainage on River Avenue from 200 feet East of River Road to 100 feet West of Beltline Highway; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date (Contract 2007-02)(Job #3693 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the Minutes, Findings and Rec- ommendations of the Hearings Official of February 29, 2008. Councilor Zelenka asked if the assessment formula was based on front footage of the property abutting the street. City Engineer Mark Schoening said that was correct. Councilor Zelenka asked how flag lots were assessed and if properties on cul-de-sacs along the street were assessed. Mr. Schoening said those properties were not assessed because those properties paid for improvement of the cul-de- sac when it was approved. He said there was a minimum assessment of 50 feet of frontage. Councilor Zelenka asked how the City’s costs were determined. Mr. Schoening said the City’s costs included bike lanes, center turn lanes, costs associated with the intersection and other costs such as federal properties that could not be assessed. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Council Bill 4970, an ordinance levying assessments for improvements on River Avenue. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 10 Public Hearing