Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/1987 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session Studio B--Eugene Hilton April 27, 1987 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Brian Obie, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Cynthia Wooten, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman, councilors; City Manager Mike Gleason; Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow; Development Director Abe Farkas; Elaine Stewart, Development; Kirk McKinley, Planning; Barbara Bellamy, Rosemary Pryor, Public Information; Cathy Freedman, City Manager's Office; Larry Douglas, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. I. STATUS REPORT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN Mayor Obie opened the meeting. Mr. Farkas presented the staff report. He said the item was a follow-up to the six-point economic development program approved by the council in 1981, which staff concluded had been successful. He said a five-year economic development plan now was being developed to address certain changes that had occurred since 1981 and that had not been addressed in the six-point program. Those changes included the Riverfront e Research Park project and diminishing availability of Federal funds. Mr. Farkas said the council had directed the Council Committee on Economic Diversification (CCED) to develop a strategy, and he said a number of issues had been addressed by that group since last July, including destination point development, financial assistance, marketing and recruitment, business and regulatory assistance, site and infrastructure development, and job training, which was to be discussed on May 6. He said CCED had reviewed histories, involvement by agencies, and current status for each issue, and staff had provided recommendations about future issues. Mr. Farkas said staff needed direction about how to proceed from May until the conclusion of the process. He reviewed the upcoming schedule, which called for CCED in May and June to identify priority issues and to review a survey of economic development issues in six cities that were comparable to Eugene or that were on the IIcutting edgell of issues. Mr. Farkas suggested that in June, the council could hold a work session to hear from CCED, and he also recommended in late June holding a roundtable discussion with public and private partner agencies to receive comments in an attempt to clarify the vision to be achieved by the economic development strategy. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session Apri 1 27, 1987 Page 1 e Mr. Farkas said a consensus among councilors could be developed in July, and from July through August the Planning Department would provide assistance in developing a draft plan. He said CCED could review and revise the draft plan in August, and the plan in September could be circulated and given its final review by CCED. Mr. Farkas said CCED then would make a recommendation to the council, which could take action on the plan in October. Responding to Ms. Ehrman's question, Mr. Farkas said the Planning Department usually assisted with department plans throughout the development process and had been involved in the previous six-point program. Ms. Bascom asked whether the site and infrastructure section of the report addressed the Fire Redeployment Plan and Police facility needs. She said she found those projects critical to the next stage of economic development and she thought they should be mentioned. Mayor Obie said he thought the council should be careful about including too many items under the label of economic development. Ms. Bascom said she thought an emergency response time at national standards was an economic development issue. Mr. Farkas said quality-of-life issues would be mentioned in a section of the report, but he added that no detailed analysis of the issue had been done yet. Mr. Rutan, a CCED member, said he thought the council should review past efforts and discuss future direction in the two areas of programs and of target projects and activities. e Mr. Rutan noted that the six-point economic diversification program had served well and had resulted in successes in several areas, such as development of the Permit and Information Center. He said it was important to maintain that center, but it no longer required the degree of attention and focus that it had in the past. Mr. Rutan said economic development activities like the permit center needed to be identified and prioritized and objectives and execution plans established for them, specifically to address staffing and funding. Mr. Rutan said the second stage of the economic development strategy could be summed up by the key phrase, "Make It Happen." He suggested i dent ifyi ng target projects that could have impacts in specific areas, such as the riverfront; prioritizing those projects; and developing plans of action. Mr. Rutan said another example of such an area might be destination point activities. He asked whether that should be a target area, and if so, what the community could do in that area. He said proposals had been made to continue the focus as a track capital or to look toward the Hult Center and the Cuthbert Amphitheatre. He said the community had many resources, but it needed to focus on areas that would have the most impact. Mr. Rutan said he intended to work with staff on examining and identifying some of those areas before presenting them to CCED. Ms. Wooten noted that the plan did not yet contain specific proposals. She said she welcomed council input to the framing of proposals for IlTier II of our community' s comeback. II e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session April 27, 1987 Page 2 e Mr. Holmer said he appreciated Mr. Rutan's willingness to work on the plan. He added that he thought the second phase, identification of target projects, was particularly significant and ought to be the focus of the council's consideration about where the projects fit into the total City agenda. Mr. Holmer said he thought the City needed to keep economic development in balance with the rest of its responsibilities. Ms. Bascom agreed. Ms. Ehrman noted that Issue 5 on page 3 of the staff notes suggested focusing international recruitment efforts on Pacific Rim countries. She said information from the Metro Partnership was that the Pacific Rim area now was passel and that current efforts should be directed toward Europe. She said those issues appeared to be in flux, and she did not know whether that policy should be "written in stone." Mr. Farkas said that was one element that could be expanded. Mayor Obie asked whether the council preferred to participate in the prioritization process in May and June, rather than delegating that to CCED. Ms. Schue said she agreed with addressing priorities once rather than twice, unless CCED members objected. Ms. Ehrman and Mr. Rutan said either process was acceptable. Mr. Rutan added that CCED could help to narrow the issues for focus. Ms. Wooten said she preferred to have CCED "filter" some issues. Mr. Holmer agreed and suggested making the CCED minutes available to the council. II. PROPOSAL ON ROLE OF COUNCIL AS EUGENE RENEWAL AGENCY e Mr. Farkas said the council in 1982 had assumed responsibility as the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and had created the Downtown Commission. He said it seemed that more time had been spent in setting up the structure of the Downtown Commission, and perhaps not enough time had been spent trying to deal with how the council should or could act as a public development agency. Mr. Farkas reviewed the April 23, 1987, memo attached to agendas. He said policy suggestions included trying to model the relationship of the council as renewal agency and of an advisory group like the Downtown Commission after the re 1 at i onshi p between the council and the Community Deve 1 opment Committee (CDC). Mr. Farkas noted that the council provided broad guidance to CDC in developing the Community Development Block Grant work program, budget, and projects. He said projects were reviewed in detail by the CDC before coming back to the council for final approval. Mr. Farkas also suggested that the council first might consider holding a session as the renewal agency, at which it could establish goals and policies for the downtown and riverfront areas of the community. He said that could be done in June and would help with other decisions scheduled throughout the summer. Mr. Farkas said the council also might consider placing a councilor on the Downtown Commission in order to continue constant policy interaction. Ms. Stewart reviewed ways in which the Downtown Commission might implement the renewal agency policies and report to the counci1. She said the Downtown Commission would develop a work program, which would be submitted to and adopted by the counci 1. She said the counci 1 then could meet with the Downtown Commission quarterly or by project as necessary, to review the e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session Apri 1 27, 1987 Page 3 parameters of the project and its consistency with the work program, based on adopted goa 1 s. 4It Ms. Stewart said another point staff believed necessary to address was that the renewal agency, as currently structured, did not include projects that were included in the Capital Improvments Program. She said staff proposed that Downtown Commission recommendations for projects in the CIP would come to the counci 1 as renewa 1 agency and then go through the Budget Commi ttee and council processes. Ms. Stewart said staff also recommended that the Downtown Commission develop an annual report and forward it to the agency for adoption. She added that the report would IIclose the loop" on work program goals and implementation and would provide for evaluation or modification of time lines. Ms. Stewart said other suggestions included having the chair or vice chair of the Downtown Commission attend a monthly council lunch meeting for informal communication, and forwarding to the council agendas, staff notes, minutes, and perhaps a meeting summary. She said staff could continue to use the weekly newsletter for updates. Ms. Stewart said additional recommendations included an annual meeting of the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission and regular committee activity reports at each Downtown Commission meeting, to be included in minutes and in meeting summaries. e Mr. Holmer asked whether the boundaries of the Downtown Commission and the renewa 1 agency were the same, except for the ri verfront. Ms. Stewart sa i d they were not the same, because the boundary of the renewal agency was much smaller than that of the Downtown Commission, which extended from the park to Lincoln and Lawrence and'as far as the river. Ms. Bascom said she found it helpful and interesting to learn that CIP projects from the Downtown Commission had gone directly into the CIP, and not to the council, which she said explained some of the council's frustration in discovering those projects, Ms, Schue said she preferred to receive the Downtown Commission minutes, but unless the summaries had some other use, they did not need to be prepared for her. Mr. Hoimer said he concurred. Responding to Ms. Ehrman1s question, Ms. Stewart said State law mandated the existence of the agency as long as the district existed. Ms. Bascom sa i d she had found the Downtown Commi 55 ion mi nutes helpful in understanding the discussion of the EWEB plaza project. Mr. Holmer asked whether consideration had been given to tightening the relationship between the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission in other ways, such as havi ng the Downtown Commi ss i on report to the Pl anni ng Commission. Mr. Farkas said those two commissions had different functions and purviews, with the Planning Commission providing advice on City-wide issues, while the Downtown Commission as an advisory body was more similar to a special-authority neighborhood group. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session April 27, 1987 Page 4 e e e Mr. Gleason noted that the City Council's actions as Urban Renewal Agency were regulated by a provision of the Oregon Constitution, which was separate from the statute regulating actions as City Council. Ms. Wooten said she was delighted with the proposal to meet as Urban Renewal board. She asked how its role and goal-setting could be distinguished from the Downtown Plan, given the different boundaries. Mr. Farkas said the Downtown Plan was a general guide for potential development in a larger boundary area, and the Urban Renewal Agency would guide more specific implementation of projects and programs within the Urban Renewal boundaries, including suggestions about finances, timing, and site plans. Ms. Wooten said some Urban Renewal update items had been presented last November, and she asked staff to make that information available again. Ms. Stewart said that was scheduled for a May 27 dinner/work session and would follow the joint meeting of the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission. Ms. Wooten said she thought a council decision about boundary expansion and about the opening of Willamette Street should come after the council had met as an Urban Renewal board in an attempt to identify goals and priorities. Mr. Farkas agreed. Mr. Holmer said he liked seven of the 11 recommendations. He said he had reservations about a councilor serving as an ex-officio member; he did not think the council needed to approve a formal work program once it had set the goals; he did not favor the monthly lunch; and he thought receiving the Downtown Commission's agendas and minutes, without more additions to the council newsletter, would be sufficient communication, unless an item was critical. Ms. Ehrman said she liked the idea of including short items in the newsletter to the council. She also said she still thought it was a good idea to include a councilor on the Downtown Commission, and she favored making the position a vot i ng member. Ms. Schue said she thought the process used with the Community Development Committee was working well. She asked for Ms. Wooten's opinion about the Citizen Involvement Committee process. Ms. Wooten said she thought the council's participation was more valuable to the committee than it was to the council. She added that the CIC pos it ion provi ded a good bri dge for communication, but that because of the level of the Downtown Commission, she thought a voting member on that would be inappropriate and favored an ex- officio position. Mr. Holmer asked whether the same structure could be applied to the Planning Commission. Ms. Schue said she thought the Planning Commission was a special case because it had certain functions under State law, such as appeal authority. Ms. Ehrman added that the Downtown Commission was responsible for allocating a large amount of money, although the council ultimately voted on the recommendations. Mayor Obi e sa i d he thought an ex-offi ci 0 position woul d add a lot to communication. He said he also was concerned that heavy council involvement in initial planning stages might hinder the creative energy and commitment of MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session Apri 1 27, 1987 Page 5 e the Downtown Commission. He suggested trying to find ways to allow joint participation by the commission and the council in developing common goals. Mayor Obie added that he always had felt that the relationship between the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission was a compromise, both to staff and to members of the commissions. He suggested that too many non-land- use issues were being sent through the Planning Commission and that too many participants made processes cumbersome. Ms. Bascom said she thought a council position on the Downtown Commission would help communciation and understanding, adding that she did not think the voting status was a crucial issue. Ms. Wooten said she was glad the council would be meeting as an Urban Renewal board and she appreciated and trusted the work of the Downtown Commission, but as a policy-maker, she was tired of the IIpiecemeal vision" that was being pursued downtown, and she was disappointed that no broader vision was being communicated to the public. She said she thought that the council as an Urban Renewal board could communicate that vision from the guideline of the Downtown Plan and could collaborate to identify goals and development projects on a phased time period. She said she favored a process that included goal-setting and work plan approval and she thought it was time to be much more assertive about financing mechanisms for the larger redevelopment hope for the entire downtown core area. e Mayor Obie asked about plans to involve the Downtown Commission in goal- setting. Mr. Farkas said he intended to have the Downtown Commission meet with the council at the initial Urban Renewal Agency session, but the goals ultimately would be adopted by the City Council, which would set policies to guide the actions of the Downtown Commission. Mr. Holmer said he thought it would be useful to have the Downtown Commission present recommended goals to the council, in order to preserve the creativity of the commission. Ms. Schue noted that the Downtown Commission or the Urban Renewal Agency had a special fund. She said communication problems might have resulted from different views of the budget and of downtown needs, such as parking garages. She said she thought more clarity about direction was needed. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the Downtown Commission perhaps should report to the Urban Renewal Agency, with the Planning Commission to report to the council. Mayor Obie said that was a possibility, and he asked for Mr. Bennett1s opinion. Mr. Bennett, a former Planning Commissioner, said he thought the Planning Commission should deal only with land-use issues. He said actions of the Downtown Commission that were related to land-use might need to include Planning Commission involvement, but he favored keeping the delineation as clear as possible. He said he had noticed concern and frustration on the Planning Commission about not being involved in Downtown Commission recommendations that affected the whole community. He said staff had made efforts to integrate the work of both commissions, but he thought it would be helpful in the future to continue to make the process clearer. Mr. Rutan, also a former member of the Planning Commission, said he supported Mr. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session Apri 1 27, 1987 Page 6 e Bennett's comments. He said the parallel processes of the two commissions had not worked well in his experience and had resulted in a feeling of competition about whose recommendations would be seen first by the council. He said having differences of opinion so often between the two most important advisory bodies was a process problem that should be addressed. Mr, Gleason said statutes required that the Capital Improvements Program be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He also noted that issues such as traffic patterns and the Lane Transit District bus station required involvement by both commissions, and that was the reason for having the Planning and Public Works Directors attend Downtown Commission meetings. Mr. Farkas suggested that the survey of six cities could include relations and structures of Urban Renewal processes in other communities, and that information could be presented at the meeting in June. A consensus agreed. Ms. Wooten also requested that the meeting include distribution of a full disclosure in staff reports on all development projects that were being discussed, pending, or in the works, and status reports on those projects, adding that she understood the need for some discretion in discussing possible developments. Mr. Holmer said he had recently been involved in an argument about whether another council was a Federal agency or an advisory group. He said he liked the idea of convening as an "Urban Renewal Board," rather than meeting as an "agency. .. e Ms. Ehrman said that now might be too soon, but she still favored the idea of eventually establishing the Downtown Commission as a reporting arm of the renewal agency, distinct from the rest of City government, She asked staff to prepare a memo describing the process for making such a change. Ms. Schue suggested trying for two or three months the idea of inviting a member of the Downtown Commission to a monthly council lunch. Mayor Obie said he agreed and thought the informal communciation would be helpful. Councilors agreed to decide about the council representation on the Downtown Commission at the June goals session. Mr, Gleason said that meeting probably would include two parts--plan content and governance. Mayor Obie recessed the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ?7~ Mi&'ea 1 Gl easo City Manager (Recorded by Leslie Scales) mncc.QP :2'7 e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session Apri 1 27, 1987 Page 7