Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/1987 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session Studio C--Eugene Hilton June 2, 1987 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller, Rob Bennett. City Council President Debra Ehrman called a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, to order. His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie arrived about 5:45 p.m. and presided from then on. I. ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER A. Lane County Jail City Manager Micheal Gleason said agreements concerning additional jail facil it i es are bei ng negotiated by Ci ty and Lane County representatives. Members of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) will review the agreements in a week or so and probably recommend their approval to the City Council. He ~aid the short-term agreement concerns temporary jail facilities and the cost is in the City budget. He said he needs to order a temporary facility now in order to have it ready for the summer. He said ordering it is a normal function. No councilors objected to Mr. Gleason's ordering the structure. B. Concert of The Grateful Dead Mr. Gleason said The Grateful Dead will present a concert at Autzen Stadium this summer. Many people who come to such concerts camp near the stadium. Therefore, Ci ty, Lane County, and Uni vers i ty of Oregon offi ci a 1 s are negotiating an agreement to provide the undeveloped part of Alton Baker Park for the campers. Lane County owns the park but it is within the city limits. He said the Lane County Board of Commissioners will ask the council to permit camping in the park for a specific period. Answering questions from Ms. Wooten and Ms. Bascom, Mr. Gleason said sanitation facilities will be provided for the campers. He said the University of Oregon Athletic Department will sponsor the concert. No councilors objected to the negotiations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 1 e e e II. SEWER USER RATE PROPOSAL Ci ty Manager Mi chea 1 Gl eason introduced Fi nance Di rector Warren Wong who distributed a packet titled "Local Sewer Rate." Mr. Wong reviewed the data in the packet. He said the Ci ty has several types of funds. The 1 oca 1 sewer operations and capital projects funds are enterprise funds. Enterprise funds are rate-based funds and users pay for the service provided. Enterprise funds do not receive support from the General Fund. Mr. Wong said the council's financial management policies that affect the enterprise funds are maintenance of an adequate service system, compliance with established service standards, fund independence, rate-based support, no property tax support, maintenance of adequate working capital, and sufficient contingency and reserve funds. Answering questions from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Wong said the decision to fund a service with an enterprise fund is usually made during the budget process before a service is initiated. Mr. Gleason said the decision to fund the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was made in 1976 or 1977 when the service district was formed. Replying to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Wong said the City would like the sewer fund to be financially stable and to break even. Mr. Wong said the cash flow, capital requirements, and contingency and reserve provisions for the sewer fund are important because of its present fiscal ~ondition and because of future infrastructure requirements. He said the sewer operations fund totals about $3.6 million annually. He discussed expenses and revenue and said working capital in an enterprise fund should equal two months. cash flow. For the sewer fund, the working capital should be $600,000 to $800,000. Working capital also needs to be accumulated to pay for capital projects. He said the working capital in the sewer fund in the early 1980's was $7 million. Because of capital projects, the working capital is now down to about $3.4 million and will be down to about $102,000 in 1988. Mr. Gleason said much of the $7 million was spent providing services to the River Road and Willow Creek areas. Mr. Wong reviewed the sewer capital projects that have been funded since 1981. Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Wong said the sewer fund under discussion is for the City of Eugene only. Mr. Wong said the contingency part of a fund should be about 5 percent. For the sewer fund, it should be about $200,000. He discussed several recent sewer emergencies. Mr. Holmer pointed out that the General Fund includes contingency funds for both operations and capital projects. Mr. Wong responded that the General Fund contingency funds are for projects paid for from the General Fund. He said the contingency for sewer operations is in the sewer fund and there is another $100,000 in the budget for a reserve for sewer capital. Mr. Gleason added that funds from the General Fund must be used if there is not enough in the contingency for sewer emergencies. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 2 - Answering questions from Mayor Obie and Ms. Bascom, Mr. Wong said the working capital in the sewer fund finances the reserve for capital projects. Mr. Gleason said the reserve fund for sewer capital projects has never been separate from the working capital in the sewer fund. Mr. Wong said the working capital was deliberately spent for projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the capital budget. He said $102,744 is too low for the fund. He said an adequate working capital will be accumulated in two years if the council approves the proposed increase in sewer rates. Mr. Wong reviewed four proposals for monthly sewer rates for single-family homes. The rates were $6.35, $6.13, $5.85, and the existing $5.65. He said the $6.35 rate would correct the flow estimates, transfer portions of four positions that deal with the sewer fund from the General Fund to the sewer fund, provide a pipe sealing program, and provide for inflation in 1988 and 1989. The level of service would remain the same as now. Answering questions from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Andersen said one of the positions to be transferred is a person in the Public Works Department who has been spending half-time working on public information about sewers. The other positions to be transferred are half-time of a financial coordinator, half- time of a person who works at the counter in the Engineering Division, and half-time of a person maintaining the local pump stations. e Ms. Wooten said she asked for information about ,the flow correction. Ms. Andersen said it is difficult to pinpoint the errors that led to an underestimation of the flow; however, current projections are based on actual pata since conversion to flow-based rates. Mr. Gleason said the council instructed the staff to do the best it could when flow-based rates were initiated. George Jessie of the Public Works Department said about 35~ of the proposed rate increase is for flow correction. Mr. Wong said the $6.13 rate would correct the flow estimates, transfer the four half-time positions from the General Fund to the sewer fund, and provide for inflation in 1989. He said services would be reduced about 3 percent and capital projects costing about $20Q,000 would be eliminated. The $5.85 rate would correct the flow estimate and provide for inflation in 1989. He discussed various ways of reducing the expenditures between $200,000 and $330,000 if the council approves that rate. He said the $5.65 rate would result in eliminating some capital projects and reducing services $100,000 to $330,000. Mr. Wong said the staff recommends the $6.35 rate. He reviewed an analysis of that rate for the next two years. The analysis was on page 7 of the packet he had distributed. Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Wong discussed the sewer projects in the CIP for FY88 and FY89. He said the CIP contains $580,000 for sewer projects in FY89 and a sewer rehabilitation project might be eliminated if the council adopts the lower sewer rates in FY88. Replying to questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Wong said the projected revenue in the analysis of the $6.35 rate includes revenue from commercial and industrial e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 3 e users as well as revenue from residential users. Ms. Andersen said the proposal includes a percentage increase in commercial rates approximately equal to the percentage increase in residential rates. For example, commercial rates would increase from $15.29 to $17.30, from $30.08 to $33.92, and from $111.84 to $125.76. The mid-year flow will continue to be used to calculate rates. The projected revenue does not anticipate conservation of flows. A 2.5 percent growth is anticipated in the projected revenue for the second year. Replying to questions from Mr. Miller, Ms. Andersen said the Public Works Department has not received comments on the proposed rate increase. Mr. Jessie said comments at the MWMC public hearing on proposed increases in the regional sewer rates indicated that people want stable rates and minimum increases. Answering questions from Mayor Obie, Mr. Gleason said personnel costs are $2.1 million (about 65 percent) of the sewer operating expenses. Labor contracts require a 3 percent increase. Ms. Andersen said the rest of the operating expenses are sewer pipes, grates, and other equipment. The capital projects are all contracted. Central service allocations are determined by a formula requi red by the Federal government. Mr. Gl eason di scussed the servi ce allocations. Replying to questions from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Gle~son said the City pays Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) for including sewer charges on water bills. e ~esponding to questions from Mayor Obie, Mr. Gleason said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State standards for waste water and storm water affect 1 oca 1 sewer rates. He di scussed the standards. Ms. Andersen said additional flows would necessitate additional cleaning and maintenance of the sewers. Mr. Gleason said the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant is huge because the plant was built for the future. It is not operating at capacity. The relative treatment costs will decrease as capacity increases. However, the rate users pay probably will not decrease. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Wong said the central services cost allocation for the sewer fund is different from the cost allocation for the urban renewal agency because the bases for distribution are different. Mr. Wong reviewed the capital projects included in the FY88 budget and the projects in the FY89 CIP. He said they would be reduced if the second, third, and fourth rate options are approved by the council. Mr. Wong said some administrative restraints will be imposed on the sewer fund to assure that fixed costs can be met regardless of which rate is approved by the council. He said some capital projects probably will be deferred. He emphasized that a substantial sewer infrastructure must be supported. Answering questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Jessie said the proposal includes an increase in the storm sewer charge from $2.41 to $2.74 and an increase in the sanitary sewer charge from $4.24 for 6,000 gallons to $3.60 for single-family residences. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 4 e e e Replying to questions from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Jessie said about 52 percent of the City's flow is from commercial and industrial users. He said the proposed increase is the same percentage for all types of users. He said customers are concerned about the percentage of increase rather than the specific dollar amount. Mr. Gleason discussed the characteristics of industrial and residential flows and said the proposed rates are fair. Ms. Andersen said attempts have been made during the last few years to make residential and industrial rates equitable. Mr. Miller wondered when the rates would preclude heavy users from locating here or would cause them to move. Ms. Andersen said it is difficult to compare Eugene rates to rates in other communities but data indicate that Eugene rates are less than Salem rates and more than Portland rates. Mr. Gleason discussed rates and said he believes the combined Eugene rate is no higher than the combined rate in other areas. Mayor Obie said Eugene rates are usually compared to Portland rates. He said some business owners tell him they cannot compete with Salem businesses. Mr. Gleason responded that EPA standards for Eugene are higher than the standards for other communities. Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Andersen said the local Springfield rate is hi gher than the Eugene rate because Spri ngfi e 1 d capi ta 1 costs are higher. A flow correction had to be made in Springfield also. Ms. Bascom said the proposed rate increase seems to be caused by past council decisions. .. Replying to a question from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gleason said street sweeping charges affect both residential and commercial sewer rates and depend on the flows. Ms. Anderson said a 2.5 percent growth has been included in the projected revenues and that seems reasonable. She said the staff looked for costs that support the sewer fund and have been paid for from other sources in the past and, if those costs are moved now, the operation and maintenance part of the sewer fund probably will be stable in the future. Future rate changes probably will be due to capital improvements. Mr. Miller wondered if another 12 percent increase will be needed in two years. Ms. Andersen responded that the operational costs probably will not increase so much in the future. Mr. Gleason said the sewer fund must pay for capital improvements. Otherwise, a general obligation bond would have to be issued. He said the council could review a cost analysis of the entire program. Responding to comments from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Andersen said developers and others who benefit from capital improvements are assessed some of the cost of the improvements. Several accounts are outstanding and will produce revenue. She said the Storm Drainage Study may identify projects that should be financed in the future and that will have an effect on future sewer rates. Mr. Holmer pointed out that deferring the Storm Drainage Study will result in deferring expenditures for improvements to the storm sewer system. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 5 Mayor Obie asked each of the councilors to comment on the proposal. e Mr. Miller said it is important to have a good sewer system but financing it is difficult. He said the council could re-assess the General fund if the council does not want to raise sewer rates. Ms. Wooten said she respects the operation of the sewer system but she is concerned about the incorrect flow estimates and does not want them to happen again. She wants to maintain rates as low as possible. She favors the $5.85 rate and would like to consider changes that could be made between the $6.13 and $5.85 rates. Mr. Rutan said the sewer system and treatment plant are important and are one of the community.s greatest resources. He wondered if the operation is in a cost containment mode. He said customers want fair, stable, and predictable rates. He said the City does not seem to know about future rates. He will listen to others but, at this time, he prefers maintaining the existing rate. Ms. Ehrman said she favors the $6.35 rate because it is less than Springfield's rate. She said constituents have not called her about sewer rates. Mr. Holmer said the same level of service will be retained with both the $6.35 rate and the $6.13 rate although reserves would be reduced with the $6.13 rate. He does not fa'vor a rate less than $6.13. e ~s. Schue said she favors the $6.35 rate because the staff recommends it. She said contingencies are necessary because emergencies happen. She said she has confidence in the staff. She said the regional rate was subsidized for some time because the Eugene staff started the plant up for less than the estimated cost. She said the council has decreased revenues too much in some areas and she does not want that to happen with the sewer fund. Constituents have not complained to her about sewer costs. She said water costs to heavy users are a cost of doing business. Ms. Bascom said previous council decisions have partly caused the present problem. She emphasized the impacts of the sewer rate on other parts of the budget. She said approval of the $6.35 rate would be wise and make the sewer fund financially stable. Mr. Bennett said he serves on the MWMC. He said he was impressed with the staff presentation. He said contingencies and reserves are important and the subsidies have been used. He said the flow estimates will be corrected. Capital costs are necessary. He leans toward the staff recommended $6.35 rate. He said he has no evidence that the Eugene rates are not competitive. Mayor Obie said the way the community competes is a subjective judgment. Local sewer rates and property taxes are high. He discussed companies that have considered locating in Eugene. He said the recommended 70~ annual sewer rate increase would finance a new library. He said the council should be careful about increasing rates. He suggested a 35~ increase that would result in a $6.00 monthly rate. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 6 e e e Answering a question from Mr. Bennett, Mayor Obie said the staff would have to present a program if his suggestion is approved. Replying to Mr. Holmer's questions, Ms. Andersen said the council will hold a public hearing on sewer rates on June 8, 1987. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the council direct the staff to prepare an ordinance with a local residential monthly sewer rate of $6.35. Mr. Miller said councilors do not seem to want to reconsider expenditures in the General Fund. He said he is concerned about the future. He wondered if the staff could find ways to help heavy users be competitive. Mayor Obie suggested the council pursue Mr. Miller's suggestion later. Mr. Holmer said the budget is funded although many expenses are deferred. He said he does not support a 12.4 percent increase. It is much more than inflation. He favors the $6.13 rate or the $6.00 rate. He said a $6.35 increase is too much for residents and business managers. Mr. Bennett said he supports the motion. He said the increase is necessary because reserves have been used and the flow estimates need to be corrected. It has nothing to do with inflation. He said an appropriate capital fund is important. He assumes the staff will operate efficiently. Ms. Schue said the council wisely agreed that users would pay the cost of operating the waste water system and that General Fund monies would not be used. She said things like street sweeping were added to the sewer charge because it was logical and fair. Ms. Ehrman said deferring projects will exacerbate the problem in a few years. The motion carried 5:3 with Councilors Ehrman, Schue, Bascom, Miller, and Bennett voting aye and Councilors Holmer, Wooten, and Rutan voting nay. Mayor Obie said the staff presentation and council consideration were excellent. Answering a question from Mayor Obie, Mr. Gleason said a public hearing on regional sewer rates was held by th MWMC. The council will consider the MWMC budget on June 8. Ms. Ehrman requested a one-page memo on the regional sewer rates. Mayor Obie recessed the meeting for a 10-minute break at 7:20 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 7 III. DOWNTOWN DIRECTION: CITY COUNCIL, EUGENE RENEWAL AGENCY, AND COMMISSION ROLES e Mayor Obie said tonight's discussion would include roles, relationships, and responsibilities related to downtown. He noted that a one-hour work session on the Urban Renewal Plan was scheduled for June 24. Development Director Abe Farkas added that Phase II of tonight's discussion was scheduled for July 8. Ms. Wooten expressed concern that those meetings would not allow enough time for discussion. Ms. Ehrman agreed, adding that she thought a work session needed to be devoted only to the possible reopening of downtown Willamette Street to traffic. Mr. Gleason said additional meetings were possible. Ms. Schue asked when council decisions on Willamette Street were planned. Mr. Farkas said a public hearing on the status of downtown Willamette Street was scheduled for July 13 and deliberation time after that was flexible. Councilors agreed to devote two hours, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 24 to the plan and design of downtown. Ms. Bascom asked when the council would be asked to consider two-way traffic on Willamette Street from 13th to 20th Avenues. Planning Director Susan Brody said the council would receive a recommendation about that in the Central Area Transportation Study. She added that the City Council would hold a public hearing on that study June 8 and a work session was planned for the following weeks. e . Mr. Farkas presented the staff report. He noted that staff on April 27 had presented a proposal for the City Council as Urban Renewal Agency and had agreed to provide further information about relationships in other cities and about roles, responsibilities, and priorities. He reviewed the agenda for tonight's topic, adding that the Downtown and Planning Commissions recently had acted on the Urban Renewal Plan and that their recommendations soon would be sent to councilors. Mr. Farkas reviewed downtown goals and priorities that the council had approved in the Downtown Plan, including: 1) encouraging development as an intense urban center, emphasizing density and variety; 2) creating a strong economic base for jobs and building construction and occupancy; 3) focusing on downtown as a regional center, with a variety of functions; and 4) supporting public improvements to accommodate access and circulation. Mr. Farkas showed the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, extending south to 13th Avenue, west to Lincoln Street, north to 4th Avenue, and east to the riverfront area. He said tools in the Downtown Plan area included historic preservation tax credits, the Downtown Development District, which had been created primarily to promote parking and marketing for downtown, and the Urban Renewal Authority, which was a primary focus tonight. Elaine Stewart, of the Development Department, reviewed information on roles and responsibilities. She said staff had surveyed six cities about operation of Urban Renewal Agencies. Those cities included Eugene, Portland, Salem, and Tualatin, Oregon; Spokane, Washington; and Ventura, California. She said two e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 8 e e e general models existed for Urban Renewal Agencies--the existing advisory committee model in whi ch the Ci ty Council acts as Urban Renewal Agency, assisted by an advisory committee composed mainly of business and property owners within the district; and the model used for the Portland Development Commission and Spokane, Unlimited, groups which operated privately, independent ly of the City Council, or both. Ms. Ehrman asked about the authority used to establish the Portland and Spokane agencies. Ms. Stewart said the Portland Development Commission had been created by a charter of the City Council, and its five members were appointed by the Mayor. She said the City Council approved Urban Renewal Plans and was informed of condemnation and acquisition of property carried out by the PDC. Ms. Stewart said the Spokane group was a private, non-profit organization, and the Mayor was an ex-officio member of the board of directors. Thirty-five board members paid annual fees of $1,000 to $15,000 for a three-year commitment and conducted all planning for Spokane except for the pavi ng of streets. Mr. Gl eason added that Washington did not allow Tax Increment Districts and that Oregon law did not allow delegation such as that in Spokane. He said Eugene could create a commission such as that in Portland. Responding to Ms. Wooten's question, Ms. Stewart said membership on the Spokane board was not 1 imited except for the fees. She added that the majority of property in Spokane was controlled by six local owners, who were on the board. Ms. Wooten asked how funds for public improvements were generated in Spokane. Ms. Stewart said Spokane was an established, fairly wea 1 thy city, and the group usually woul d issue a bond measure. If the measure failed, funds were raised privately, which had been the method used for the Skyway system and for the World's Fair. Ms. Stewart reviewed the cities that had separate material for Urban Renewal Agencies. She said all of the cities except Portland and Spokane had advisory groups to their city councils. She showed the number of advisory members for each city and said Eugene's ordinance probably was the most specific about representation. She added that all five members of the Portland Development Commission were developers, financiers, or economists, with the Mayor's appointments based on geographic representation. She also said the Portland and Spokane groups had their own staffs, while the other city councils used City staffs. Responding to Ms. Wooten's question, Ms. Stewart said the Portland City Council approved all renewal plans, of which it had an extensive number. She added that the Development Commission implemented and negotiated those plans. Ms. Stewart said all cities except Spokane had Tax Increment financing, therefore, Spokane actually was not a renewal agency. Ms. Stewart reviewed the actors (the City Council as renewal agency, the Downtown Commission, the Planning Commission, staff, and private sector developers) and functions (approval, recommendation, comment, negotiation and implementation, and drafting and forwarding of options) involved in downtown development. She said plans, budgets, and projects for development preceded council process. She said the council approved all budgets, plans, public improvements, and site development in the Downtown Plan and the budget MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 9 e e e authority for redevelopment project loan programs. She said the renewal agency approved only the offering of sites for development, adding that staff would make recommendations for that area. Ms. Stewart said the Downtown Commission had a strong recommending role, with recommendations often made to the City Council rather than to the renewal agency. She also said the Downtown Commission commented on the Capital Improvements Program, on which the Planning Commission made recommendations, and the Downtown Commission had no recommending or approval authority for redevelopment of existing bUilding which was part of the budget process. The Planning Commission made recommendations on all development plans, she added, and staff' s role was in drafting and forwarding recommendations and in negotiating and implementing projects according to given policy direction. She said the private-sector contributed comments and "approved" development and redevelopment projects by providing support for them. Ms. Stewart said some problematic areas that might be addressed concerned the lack of renewal agency approval for the Tax Increment Capital Improvements Program. She said a recommendation was sent to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. Mr. Gl eason added that the Capi ta 1 Improvements Program was revi ewed by the Budget Subcommittee before bei ng sent to the council. Ms. Stewart said other areas that might be addressed included the renewal agency's role in the Tax Increment budget and in public improvements within the district. She said the Planning Com~ission would be involved only in plans, land-use issues, public improvements related to transportation, and historic preservation issues. Mr. Holmer asked about the need to define renewal agency functions, adding that because the renewal agency was the council, hi s only concern was legality. Ms. Stewart said oversights might have occurred specifically in the Tax Increment portion of the Capital Improvements Program, the Tax Increment budget, and the public improvements made with Tax Increment funds within renewal agency boundaries. Mr. Farkas said the functions of the council and the renewal agency di ffered, wi th the counci 1 generally representing the entire community and with the renewal agency acting as the development company for the downtown area. Ms. Schue said she thought difficulties might arise because the discussions as Urban Renewal Agency tended to be briefer than discussions as City Council. Mr. Gleason said he thought some active approval was needed prior to review by the Budget Subcommittee. Ms. Stewart added that substantive debate on the Capital Improvements Program now was occurring on the Downtown Commission. Mayor Obie noted that when the Downtown Commission had been established, the council had tried to develop a role with a high level of creative energy and commitment, with a strong recommending role similar to that of the Planning Commission. He said the council had agreed to appoint the commission and to approve plans. Mayor Obie said some councilors may have been uncomfortable with Downtown Commission projects that seemed to be proceeding without sufficient council knowledge, but he added that he was not uncomfortable and thought a certain amount of conflict could be healthy. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 10 e Ms. Schue said she agreed that conflict was not necessarily bad. She added, however, that in reading the Downtown Commission minutes, she had developed the impression that the Downtown Commission had a different view of Eugene's financial situation than she did as a councilor. She said she thought that difference had implications that would have to be dealt with. Ms. Schue said she understood that Downtown Commission projects were the only ones to be included in the Capital Improvements Program before appearing in a plan and before the council had acted on those projects. She said she thought the council should give more attention to finances. Ms. Bascom said the City Council had voted to remove from the budget funds for the Willamette Street project from 13th to 20th avenues and from 8th to 10th avenues, but those projects had reappeared in the budget through a process that was unclear. Ms. Wooten said she agreed with Ms. Schue that the council as urban renewal board should take a greater interest in the Capital Improvements Program as well as the Tax Increment budget and should be able to integrate and cross- reference those items with the Urban Renewal Plan and the Downtown Plan. She said that although the council approved both of those plans, the processes seemed to operate exclusively and needed better coordination. She added that she did not want to duplicate the functions of the Downtown Commission, but she favored greater understanding, control, and influence of implementation. Responding to Mayor Obie's question, Ms. Wooten said she thought the renewal board might meet quarterly or twice yearly. e Mr. Rutan said he~saw a need for earlier council. involvement in the process, and Ms. Wooten said she wanted a greater understanding of the development of items. Mr. Farkas said both the Downtown and Planning Commissions would be forwarding recommendations on the Urban Renewal Plan, which would provide direction. He said the renewal board could issue policy direction, as it did with the Community Development Block Grant Funds at the Community Development Committee or it could schedule meetings with the two commissions. Mr. Gleason added that the cross-referencing suggested by Ms. Wooten could be done by the council alone, in conjunction with the Downtown Commission, or delegated to the Downtown Commission with policy direction. Mayor Obie said he would prefer to invite the chair of the Downtown Commission to a session in which the council acted as renewal board. Mr. Holmer asked about the quorum of four on the Downtown Commission. Ms. Schue said she thought that had been set when the commission contained only seven, rather than the current nine members. Ms. Wooten asked whether staff had any recommendations about how to create an aggressive renewal agency presence and leadership in collaboration with the Downtown Commi ss ion. Mr. Farkas said staff recommended gi vi ng greater attention to the renewal agency role in the CIP and in Tax Increment financing. Mr. Gleason said the renewal board might, for example, adopt a Tax Increment budget and forward it to the Budget Committee. Mr. Farkas added e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 11 e e e that the renewal agency also might become more involved in guiding public improvements projects. Mr. Gleason explained that in dealing with public improvements projects, the council would adopt the Urban Renewal Plan, which was consistent with the Downtown Plan, which included projects such as those on Willamette Street. He said the council then could appoint a committee to make design recommendations, which would be reviewed and approved by the renewal board. Mr. Holmer asked about distinctions between project approval and CIP approval. Mr. Farkas said he thought the renewal board could approve the scope and general orientation of projects, but should not include details of design. Ms. Wooten said she thought the council needed to be better informed before implementation because of factors that could not be determined at the CIP level, such as rest rooms. Mayor Obie said he would favor a design advisory committee if it included members of the Downtown Commission. Ms. Wooten requested more information about the advisory committees of other renewal agencies and about the function of the Eugene Downtown Association in its role in the future, in the private sector, and/or in an advisory capacity. Ms. Schue noted that if people were upset about a proposed project, they would contact their councilor, not members of the Downtown Commission, and she said she thought that was as it should be. . Mr. Bennett said he agreed with Ms. Schue, but he thought the Downtown Commission had made good efforts toward fulfilling its charge, which he appreciated. He added that he thought it was the council's responsibility to provide direction if needed and said he agreed with Ms. Wooten's comments about the role of the private sector. He said he did not agree with the functions listed for the private sector. Mr. Bennett said he thought the private sector was and for some time had been "woefully underrepresented, II and he was hopeful that more discussion could be held later. Ms. Wooten asked who was included in the listing "private sector." Mr. Farkas said that sector included citizens and developers. Mr. Farkas sa i d staff woul d incorporate council ors I comments into another presentation for the July 8 meeting. Mr. Gleason said staff would return with a proposal for a process for renewal board approval of the CIP prior to the budget process. He suggested that the renewal board submit a Tax Increment budget to the Budget Committee. He said that in dealing with projects, he thought they should be divided into high-profile, political projects that should be handled by the council, those for which standards should be set by the council, and those that could be generally approved by the council and handled by other groups. He said the council could have opportunities during the process to flag projects for each category. Ms. Wooten also asked staff to address the issues she had raised earlier. Mayor Obie said he favored a process that would allow each councilor to determine his or her own level of commitment to downtown issues. Ms. Schue MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 12 e e e said she agreed, but she thought the council needed to provide parameters, which it had not done. Councilors agreed that they did not want to duplicate functions of the Downtown Commission. Greg Byrne, of the Development Department, reviewed the goals and priorities of the Urban Renewal Plan, adding that they were similar to those of the Downtown Plan but contained some differences, which he cited. He said the Urban Renewal Plan that would be recommended to the council contained a blend of the 1968 Urban Renewal Plan and the 1984 Downtown Plan. He also said the Urban Renewal Plan was a subsidiary of the Downtown Plan. He said goals in the Urban Renewal Plan included urban intensity of development, access and circulation that provided an active vision of development, eliminating blight and substandard parcels and buildings, and strengthening the economic base of the region. Mr. Byrne said those goals provided a basis for five projects, including parking structures, transportation, public space improvements, expansion area improvements, and development. He reviewed some of the projects, noting that the plan allowed a response to the Lane Transit District station proposal that was expected soon and addressed the likelihood of a library site and public open space within the Urban Renewal boundaries. He said cost and timing information would be presented at a meeting later this month. Ms. Bascom asked about the part of the Downtown Commission's charge that had included development of housing downtown, which she thought was a key to development. Ms. Schue said she could recall when downtown housing had been a .No. 1 goal of the council. Roger Neustadter, vice chair of the Downtown Commission, said that in setting goals, downtown housing continually had been low on the list of priorities cited by the public and the commission. He added that cost of building downtown housing also was a prohibitive factor, and although a desire existed for housing, for example on the upper floors of retail buildings, it did not appear practical now. Ms. Ehrman noted that council ors had toured the boundari es proposed for expansion, and she asked whether they remained the same. Mr. Byrne said some minor modifications had been made as a result of jOint meetings between the Planning and Downtown Commissions, but the proposed area was about the same size. Mr. Neustadter responded to concerns that the Downtown Commission perhaps was exceeding its charge. He said the commission felt that it was working within the structures of the plan and was proposing recommendations through the Planning Commission. He said he thought the involvement of the Planning Commission contributed to the surfacing of issues and to the perception of a lack of communication. He said the Downtown Commission did not attempt to communicate about issues until a consensus had been reached with the Planning Commission, and that might be an area to address. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 13 e e e. Mayor Obie thanked Mr. Neustadter for attending and said he appreciated the efforts and commitment being made by the Downtown Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick and Leslie Scales) mncc0602 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 14