Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1987 Meeting ~- MINUTES e Eugene City Council Council Chamber--City Hall October 21, 1987 noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Debra Ehrman (until 1:25 p.m.), Freeman Holmer, Robert Bennett, Jeff Miller, Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Cynthia Wooten, Roger Rutan (until 1:25 p.m.). In the absence of His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie, the adjourned meeting of October 14, 1987, was called to order by City Council President Debra Ehrman. Ms. Ehrman announced a change in the order of the agenda, with items VI and VII to be moved up after item II. I. ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER A. Downtown Ms. Bascom said recent minutes of the Downtown Commission described problems in the newly developed areas near Broadway, Charnelton, and Wi 11 amette streets. She requested that the council receive a report on the project and - on whether security problems were occurring there. B. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Mr. Holmer announced that he would not carry out his earlier plans to move that the council reconsider providing funds for the 1988 Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration. He said he had changed his mind after reading Mr. Miller's memo, dated today, about funding the event, which included an invitation to a dance troupe from the Phi 1 i ppi nes. Mr. Holmer sa i d he thought it wa s important to recognize that the Minorities Commission was seeking to broaden the base and concept of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration to cover all minority elements. He added that he continued to support his previous vote in favor of the event. C. Hayward Field Renovation Mr. Rutan reported that an intergovernmental agreement for use of Hayward Field was being developed by representatives of Eugene, Springfield, and the University of Oregon. He said the renovation project was on a tight schedule and added that the City Council would review the final agreement. /e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 1 D. Visit to Kakegawa ~ Ms. Ehrman reported that she and the Eugene delegation recently had returned ~ from a visit to Eugene's Sister City of Kakegawa, Japan. She distributed photos and said the trip had been wonderful. She noted that the landscape was very similar to Oregon's, although the waterfalls in Japan were smaller. Ms. Ehrman also invited interested councilors to see her collection of souvenirs. E. Metro Policy Committee Ms. Ehrman said the Metropolitan Policy Committee would be meeting tomorrow and would be considering a request from local television station KLSR for use of a cable access channel. She said comments for the meeting could be given to her before tomorrow.s meeting. F. Council Financial Planning Session City Manager Micheal Gleason noted that copies of draft work session material for the November financial planning session had been distributed to councilors. He said the ballots contained program descriptions, and dollar amounts would be provided later. Mr. Gleason requested that councilors review the information and return them with written comments to the City Manager's Office or Finance staff. Mr. Gleason said lists at the end of each section described pertinent cost items that had been raised or that were being considered, for example, the Library expansion and the recent funding for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. He suggested that councilors write in additional items, and he said staff would 4It attempt to provide costs for those items. Cathy Freedman of the City Manager's Office said the council was scheduled to hold its first financial planning session on November 2 from 4 to 10 p.m., and Mr. Holmer would be absent from that session. She said Monday, November 30, tentatively was scheduled for a follow-up date, also from 4 to 10 p.m. Councilors agreed to schedule that date. G. Urban Transition Mr. Gleason introduced Lane County Commissioners John Ball and Jerry Rust and Lane County Administrator Jim Johnson, all of whom had been involved in the Urban Transition project since 1984. Commissioners Ball and Rust presented the City Manager with a check for $1,054,154.27 as payment for City Urban Transition services. Mr. Ball acknowledged the contributions made by the City staff and by Councilors Rutan and Schue. He also acknowledged Mr. Johnson, George Kloeppel and the rest of the staff at the Lane Council of Governments, and the Springfield staffs under Steve Burkett, Ron LeBlanc, and Dave Campbell. Mr. Ball said he thought that although progress from the Urban Transition had not yet been realized, the community would see the project as a historical step in defining government roles for the benefit of all three jurisdictions. ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 2 - -- Ms. Schue thanked the commissioners for their work on passage of the project. She said she thought the funds were fair payment for services such as street e repair and the agreement was advantageous to both sides. Ms. Ehrman thanked Lane County officials for the payment and the visit. II. APPEAL OF INITIATIVE BALLOT TITLE #51 City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. He sa i d the City Code provided for an initiative petition procedure, in which the City Attorney was responsible for drafting a ballot title in response to the filing of an initiative. He said the ballot title was required to be concise and impartial and to fairly represent the subject matter and purpose. Mr. Gleason said that if those filing the petition felt the City Attorney's ballot title did not meet the fairness requirements, they could appeal the title to the City Council, which then had three days to hold a hearing and to make a decision about whether the ballot title was a concise and impartial statement of the subject matter. Mr. Gleason said a decision on this appeal could be made today or tomorrow and would be final. He suggested that the hearing follow a quasi-judicial procedure, which he described as follows: 1) staff presentation; 2) appellants. presentations; 3) staff response; 4) response by a single appellant; 5) questions from councilors; 6) close of proceedings; and 7) council deliberation and action. e Ms. Ehrman noted that councilors yesterday had received information packets and that additional information from Springfield attorneys Harms, Harold, Leahy, and Pace had been distributed today. A. Staff Presentation Ci ty Attorney John Arnold presented the staff report. He noted that information distributed to councilors included memos in which City attorneys described the procedures and issues involved in the appeal. He said the additional i nformat ion di stri buted today had been requested by the City Attorneys. Mr. Arnold said the packet referred to a ballot title that Mr. Harms had drafted and that ultimately had been adopted by Springfield voters in 1974. He said the appeal was based in part on the claim that Mr. Harms's title was the only fair and accurate description of the proposed charter amendment. Mr. Arnold said the letter from Mr. Harms stated his opinion that the ballot title prepared by the Eugene City Attorney was a clear and impartial statement of the proposed charter amendment that was the subject of the initiative. Mr. Arnold noted that today's appeal was an unusual process for the council. He said that although the initiative process in the State of Oregon was a vital and important part of the governmental processes, the issue before the council today was narrow and technical: i.e., whether the ballot title that had been challenged was a concise and impartial statement of the initiative e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 3 proposed by the appellants. Mr. Arnold said background might assist in answering that question, and he explained that in drafting a ballot title for e an initiative, it was not the function of the City Attorney to guess what the intentions of the drafters might be. It was the function of the City Attorney to examine the words submitted in the initiative petition and to explain in one hundred words or less the subject of that initiative, he said, adding that the City Attorney looked at the document, not at the intention of proponents. Mr. Arnold said the City Attorney IS function in this case had been particularly diffi cult because the initiative contained a number of ambiguities. Mr. Arnold referred councilors to the ballot title contained in packets and noted that it contained a title or caption consisting of no more than 10 words, a description of the question that could not exceed 20 words, and an explanation that was limited by law to 100 words. He said he would address appellants' contentions as they involved those three areas. Mr. Arnold read the ballot title or caption, "Charter Amendment Limiting City Authority to Develop through Urban Renewal.1I He said appellants claimed that the use of the word "limiting" constituted bias and that the term IICity Authority" was misleading. Mr. Arnold said the Oregon Urban Renewal Statute had granted authority to the City of Eugene to use tax increment financing for urban development, an authority which the City currently exercised. He said the legislation did not require a vote of the electorate, and the word "limiting" had been used in the caption because the initiative contained words of limitation in Section 1, which stated, liThe City of Eugene shall not approve an urban renewal plan. . . II Mr. Arnold added that City Attorneys felt e it would be misleading to suggest that the initiative would not limit the City's authority. --- Mr. Arnold said the appellants also argued in their petition that the caption should refer not to the City but to the City Council. He said the ballot title was required to reflect the language of the proposed initiative, and Section 1 of the initiative referred to the City, not to the City Council. He said the petition also used the words "City Council II later in another section, and that was one instance of the ambiguities in the initiative. Mr. Arnold said appellants had proposed an alternative description for the question section, but their description exceeded the 20-word limitation. He added that City Attorneys' 20-word description of the question accurately summarized the proposed initiative. He said appellants challenged the City Attorney's wording, claiming that use of the word, IIpreventll was biased. Mr. Arnold said the State Legislature had granted Oregon cities the authority to use tax increment financing without voter approval, voter approval was a limitation on that authority, and the word IIprevent" was used to reflect that limitation on the authority of the City of Eugene. Mr. Arnold noted that the third section of the ballot, the explanation, was limited to 100 words. He compared the ballot title and the initiative, noting tha t the first paragraph of the explanation described Section 1 of the i ni t i at i ve I whi ch stated that the Ci ty II sha 11 not approve" future urban - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 4 renewal plans containing provisions regarding tax allocation without prior approval of the voters. He said the second paragraph of the explanation e described Section 3 of the initiative, which required that the City Council change existing urban renewal plans containing tax allocation provisions. Mr. Arnold added that the City Attorneys felt those were the two most important elements of the initiative. He said City Attorneys also had submitted memoranda expressing their opinion that the descriptions in the explanation were as concise and impartial as possible. Mr. Arnold noted, however, that the question before the City Council was not whether a better ballot title could be written, but whether the ballot title that had been prepared met the standard under the code. If the council found that the title met the code, Mr. Arnold said the appeal would be denied. If the council found that the title did not meet the code, City Attorneys asked that it instruct them as to how the title did not constitute a concise and impartial statement, and they would redraft the title. He said additional statements from the City Attorney were contained in the memos submitted. B. Appellants' Presentations Dan Stotter, 1670 Alder Street, said he was a University of Oregon law student and was speaking on behalf of himself and three other appellants. He reminded the council that its duty and responsibility were to set aside any feelings about the merits of the measure and to look only at whether the ballot title prepared by the City was concise and impartial. Mr. Stotter said he differed with the City Attorneys over procedure for this hearing. He said appellants objected to several concerns, specifically to the City Attorneys' request for a consolidated appeal with one spokesperson (which e had been dropped); to not allowing other interested parties to speak; to allowing no opportunity for witnesses and cross-examination in response to Mr. Harms's statements; to the lack of an opportunity for an impartiality challenge because appellants had not had 48 hours to submit such a challenge; and to denial of appellants' requests for internal documents and staff notes. Mr. Stotter said the City Attorney's title was improper because it was filled with value-laden words, such as "limiting, prevent, and prohibit," which did not add anything to the title but unnecessary bias. Mr. Stotter suggested that councilors examine both the City Attorneys' title and the measure for comparison. Mr. Stotter said appellants objected to the sentence construction of the ba 11 ot title because it did not f 011 ow a simple subject-verb-object construction and was unclear or inaccurate about what was being limited, prevented, or prohibited. He said the caption, for example, made it appear that the City's authority to develop was being limited, which made the measure sound anti-development. Mr. Stotter said the question was phrased so that it appeared urban renewal plans were being prevented. In the explanation, he said the term prohibit also appeared to apply to urban renewal plans. He added that none of those descriptions were accurate representations of the measure. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 5 Mr. Stotter said it was unclear whether the words "to allocate" in the quest i on were modi fyi ng the verb "prevent" or the object. He said the e description ei ther was inaccurate or grammat i ca lly incorrect and should describe a condition for urban renewal projects by using the word "which." Mr. Stotter said the City Attorney had claimed that approval of urban renewal plans was not clear in the measure. He said Section 1 of the measure stated clearly that "the City of Eugene shall not approve an urban renewal plan. . . if such plan provides for the allocation of ad valorem taxes. . . " , so clearly voters would be approving or disapproving an urban renewal plan. He said that statement was very clear and should be represented in the ballot title. Mr. Stotter said he thought the wordi ng of "City" or "Ci ty Council" authori ty easily could be misunderstood by the public, who would perceive that the City, rather than the City Council, was being limited. Mr. Stotter said the terms in the title, "limit development," were inaccurate because the measure would ensure a type of responsible development through elector approval, and rather than actually limiting development, i t wo u 1 d leave development up to the voters. Mr. Stotter said he agreed with the City Attorney that the phrase "shall not approve" was a phrase of limitation, but he did not agree that it was synonymous with the word "limit." He said appellants felt the phrase was better paraphrased as a shi ft or a change from the Ci ty Counci 1 to the electors, rather than as a true limit upon the City. Mr. Stotter said he thought the City Attorneys' statement that the measure e "prevents the City from operati ng in its current mode" was an extreme and biased way of stating that the measure changed or modified the status quo. Mr. Stotter said appellants claimed that the explanation's use of the phrase "prohibit approval of urban renewal plans" was misleading and not impartial. He said it was evidence of bias because it sounded as if urban renewal plans were bei ng prohibited. Furthermore, he sa i d , the Ci ty Attorneys' phrase "which provide for development" was not concise and added nothing but a bias that made the measure sound anti-development. He added that the measure was not anti-development but was in favor of responsible development. Mr. Stotter said the Springfield measure, which the City Attorney had called "irrelevant," had been submitted not as a format to follow but as evidence of bias because it described the measure without using words like "prohibit" and "limit." Mr. Stotter said the term "elector approval," which was the essence and most important aspect of the measure, was not mentioned in the caption and was "buri ed" in the the 1 ast two words of the question. Mr. Stotter sa i d the Ci ty Attorneys I response to the appeal contained statements such as that the measure did not "fit into Eugene1s form of government," and that it was "hopelessly circular and technically flawed." He said those statements addressed the merits of the measure. He also said no e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 6 law was technically perfect and such statements were not pertinent to the duty of the City Attorney for drafting an impartial ballot title. He said the City e Attorneys had ri ghtfully noted that the statements were not their responsibility for preparation of the ballot title, and he asked why the arguments had been presented in the packet, except for a bias against the measure. Tom Lester 235 East 2nd Avenue, responded to questions from Mr. Stotter. He said he was an appellant and had read the City Attorneys' proposed ballot title. Mr. Lester said he thought the proposed ballot title sounded as if it would limit or prohibit the City's ability to use urban renewal as a tool to direct development. He said that differed from his understanding of Measure #51, which was intended not to limit or prevent the City's ability to use urban renewal as a tool for development, but rather to shift the decision to use urban renewal from the City Council to the electorate. Mr. Stotter asked Mr. Lester how his educational background compared to that of the average Eugene voter. Mr. Lester said he was a senior at the University of Oregon. Richard Gold, 1486 East 25th Avenue, also responded to questions from Mr. Stotter. He said he was one of the drafters of Measure #51, and he did not believe the City Attorney's caption, question, and explanation accurately described the measure. Mr. Gold said the words "limiting, preventing, and prohibiting" were biased and did not reflect any of the language used in the measure. He also noted that the word "development" did not appear anywhere in the measure. Mr. Gold said the wording of his measure was not intended to, and actually would not, limit, prevent, or prohibit urban renewal or economic development, e as implied by the City Attorney's ballot title. Mr. Stotter asked whether Mr. Gold was aware of any reasons for the bias or di fference in the City Attorneys · title. Mr. Gold said the measure would shift authority from the City Council, where it currently was held, to the voters, and he suggested that it would be in the interest of City government to protect its authority. Steve Andresen, 2640 University, distributed written statements, dated October 20, 1987. He said he had lived in Eugene since 1970, and he read the statement, describing why he believed the ballot title mischaracterized the intent and language of the measure. He also said he thought the Eugene code gave the council the power to change the ballot title and approve another one without referring the title to the City Attorney. C. City Attorneys' Response Mr. Arnold said the code provided a process allowing challenges for bias or conflict within 48 hours unless good cause was shown. He said the procedure required a hearing within three days. He also said appellants could challenge a councilor for bias or prejudice in this matter, but no challenge had been made. Mr. Arnold said the language of the initiative proposal, and not the motives and intent of the appellants, were the issue of this hearing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 7 Mr. Arnold said Section 1 of the initiative stated that the City "shall not" adopt an urban renewal plan and later referred to a "provision of such plan providing for the allocation of ad valorem taxes." He said Section 2 then e required submission to the voters, not of the urban renewal plan, but of the provision in that plan governing the allocation of taxes. He said the initiative was ambiguous about whether voters would be voting on the urban renewal plan or on the provision concerning the allocation of taxes. He said City Attorneys understood that the provision, rather than the plan, would be submitted to voters. Mr. Arnold said the City Attorneys had tried to address that ambiguity by referring in the question to the allocation of taxes that were increases in project value. Mr. Arnold said appellants had claimed that the phrase of limitation was not synonymous with a limit. He said the Legislature had provided the City with authority to use tax increment financing, and the legislation contained no requirement for a vote. He said the requirement of a vote was a limitation on the authority of the City. Mr. Arnold said appellants claimed that the ballot title was biased in its use of the word "prohibit" in the explanation and unfair because it did not highlight the requirement of voter approval. He said it was not appropriate to examine single words or portions of the title, which should be viewed as a whole. He said the last phrase of the explanation stated precisely the requirement for elector approval of the provision. He added that all substantive elements of the initiative were described in the title. Mr. Arnold said Mr. Harms's ballot title had been submitted as evidence of bias in the title prepared by Eugene City Attorneys. He said councilors had ~ received copies of a letter from Mr. Harms, who clearly expressed his opinion ... that the ballot title was a concise and impartial statement of the initiative proposed by the appellants. He said that was the limited purpose for which the letter had been submitted, and he said no position had been intended or taken by the City Attorneys. Mr. Arnold said he thought the appellants' suggestion about the measure's essence of voter approval confused their motives and intent with the language of the initiative that had been submitted. He said language in Sections 1 and 3 of the initiative placed limitations on the City's authority to approve urban renewal plans and required the City Council to change existing plans within ten days and therefore before a vote. Mr. Arnold said City Attorneys had attempted to fulfill their function of summarizing the language of the initiative. D. Questions from Councilors Ms. Ehrman suggested taking questions from councilors at this point in the meeting. No objections were expressed. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Stotter whether it was his intent to require the people of the City of Eugene to approve urban renewal plans or amendments to those plans and on, perhaps, an annual basis, the allocation of tax increment funds for implementation of projects within those plans. Mr. Stotter said the first ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 8 part of her statement was correct, but the second part did not describe his intent. He said his intent was that voters would approve urban renewal e projects if they fit the incremental tax fi nanci ng. Mr. Stotter said the Downtown Plan, at least at one time, had provided an example of such an urban renewal plan financed by incremental taxes. He said the urban renewal plan and amendments to that plan, rather than the projects in the plan, would be subject to voter approval. Mr. Holmer said he tended to agree with the appellants' case with regard to the title or caption section. He said he saw nothing in the ordinance but an added procedure, which was not the same as "limiting City authority to develop through urban renewal." Mr. Arnold said Section 3 of the initiative required that existing plans be changed within ten days to eliminate any provision for the allocation of taxes, which City Attorneys understood to mean tax increment financing, although that term was not clear in the initiative as drafted. He said that requirement was a limitation and would occur before any vote. Ms. Ehrman said she had asked the City Attorney whether the initiative could be withdrawn and resubmitted. She said City Attorneys had said that could not be done, and she asked Mr. Gold whether he might consider redrafting the initiative. Mr. Gold said he did not plan to redraft the initiative. E. Appellants' Response Mr. Stotter said it was very clear to him after reading the City Attorney's response to the appeal that someone in the City Attorney's Office did not like the merits of the ballot measure. He said evidence included statements like the one that the measure did not "fit into Eugene1s form of government." Mr. e Stotter said the measure fit into Springfield1s form of government and could fit into Eugene1s form of government if the voters agreed. He said such statements indicated a bias on the part of the City Attorneys, and he was concerned that such a role was not appropriate. Mr. Stotter said he was concerned about reliance on the letter written by Mr. Harms. He said that was the opinion of one attorney, and others might feel di fferent ly. Mr. Stotter said Mr. Harms1s opinion was not relevant to whether the ballot title was concise and impartial, and the reason for submitting the ballot title was as a basis for comparison. F. Council Discussion Mr. Miller said he felt the City Attorney had made an appropriate case, and he recommended that the pet it i oners redraft the initiative to clarify ambiguities in the language. He said he thought the City Attorneys' description of the ballot measure was unbiased, and he saw no alternative but to reject the appeal. Mr. Holmer said he thought the appellants clearly had made their case and had done so very well. He said he believed the words they had identified did show predisposition in the title, question, and the fi rst paragraph of the explanation. He said he thought the rest of the title would more accurately reflect the language in the proposed initiative if it were described as "a e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 9 charter amendment requiring voter approval of urban renewal plans and projects." Mr. Holmer added that he was absolutely opposed to the measure, e because he thought it would fail to do the job the way it ought to be done, but he did not agree that the council should approve the ballot title. Ms. Bascom said the issue that appeared to concern the drafters of the initiative was letting the voters of the community have their say in voting on urban renewal measures, and that issue would be discussed, but she today found no significant disagreements about the wording of the title. Ms. Ehrman said she had given no weight to Mr. Harms's opinion in making her decision. Mr. Miller noted that the council was voting only on the narrow issue defined by the City Attorney, and not on the merits of the initiative. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to deny the appeal of Initiative Ballot Title #51. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:1, Councilors Ehrman, Miller, Schue, Bascom, Wooten, Rutan, and Bennett voting aye; Councilor Holmer vot i ng nay. Councilors Ehrman and Rutan left the meeting at 1:25 p.m., and Council Vice President Freeman Holmer assumed the chair. He recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. III. EUGENE RENEWAL AGENCY: EUGENE CONFERENCE CENTER/HILTON HOTEL e AGREEMENT AMENDMENT City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Development Director Abe Farkas introduced the staff report. Mr. Farkas noted that the City Council and Renewal Agency in 1980 had approved an agreement for an arrangement between the Eugene Community Conference Center and the owners of the Hilton Hotel for use of the conference center facilities. He said staff would review the history of that arrangement and would present information about a new arrangement with prospective buyers. Mr. Farkas said the prospective purchasers worked with a group of venture capital associates from the Southern California area and who operated about eight or ten other hotels. He added that the City Council and the council as Renewal Agency would need to provide the City Manager with the authority to approve the amendments to the original agreement. Bob Hibschman of the Development Department presented the staff report. He noted that the Hilton Hotel had been constructed about ten years ago as part of a hotel project for a renewal agency parcel in the downtown area. That project had resulted in an agreement with the 6th Avenue Hotel Associates and in a subsequent agreement for development of the hotel and conference center. He said First Interstate Bank last year had assumed control of the hotel, and City staff had re-evaluated the agreement and operational relationships with the parking and conference center facilities. He said staff believed the proposed agreement was very benefi cia 1 for the City, for the continued e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 10 operation of the conference center, and it was hoped, for improved operation of the hote 1 . Mr. Hibshman added that the reason for renegotiating the e agreement had been economic. He said staff had found that the working capital in the conference center fund was declining and had made adjustments to rental charges. Mr. Hibschman reviewed key points of the agreement. He said the term of the agreement would remain the same, at 55 years with renewable options. The main change in the base rent structure, he said, was that the $100,000 base rent would be indexed with the Consumer Price Index in Portland. The City a 1 so would continue to receive payments based on room sales and woul d begi n receiving payments from food and beverage sales at the hotel, he noted. Mr. Hibschman said the new agreement was expected to result in about 50 percent more rental revenue than the current agreement. He said the review periods in the new agreement would occur more frequently, at 25 years. He also said the City had agreed to improve the conference center by replacing worn carpets and installing extra equipment, for a cost of about $86,000. The hotel developers had indicated willingness to do a complete refurbishing of rooms, corridors, lighting, lobbies and upstairs areas, and both restaurants, for estimated costs of about $1 million, he added. Mr. Hibschman said the responsibility for the parking validation system had been shifted from the City to the hotel, and other minor changes also had been made. Mr. Holmer asked whether the memorandum of understanding that had been di stri buted wi th councilors' agendas was a document to be signed. Mr. Hibschman said the memo was a working agreement to be used in developing the final agreement that would be signed. Mr. Holmer asked whether the agreement dated June 30, 1980, in the memo of understanding was the same one as that e dated June 25, 1980, in the motion. Mr. Hibschman said June 30 was an error, and the reference was to the agreement of June 25. Mr. Hibschman added that the agreement contained two options, granted at the developer's request, either to purchase or to net lease the facility in the future. He said specific terms were contained in the memo of understanding. Mr. Holmer recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Renewal Agency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to amend the June 25, 1980, agreement and provide for other documents considered necessary and appropriate to consummate an agreement with the new owners. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:0. Mr. Holmer adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. IV. EUGENE CONFERENCE CENTER/HILTON HOTEL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 11 Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to authorize the City Manager to execute amendments to the June 25, 1980, agreement e and other such documents as he considers necessary and appropriate to consummate an agreement with the new owners. Ms. Wooten thanked Mr. Farkas and staff for their work on the agreement, which she thought would be advantageous to the City of Eugene and to the community. She welcomed the new owners of the hotel. Mr. Bennett said he also appreci ated the staff efforts involved in the agreement, which he hoped would result in owners who would be participants in the Eugene market and who were will i ng to make the moderately long-term commitment to the hotel that was needed. He said he understood that was the case, and he looked forward to seeing it happen. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:0. V. EXTENSION OF AND REVISION TO THE TAX DIFFERENTIAL PLANS IN THE RIVER ROAD, SANTA CLARA, AND HIGHWAY 99 AREAS City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Res. No. 4059--A resolution approving and extending the tax differential plans for the River Road and Santa Clara areas. Res. No. 4060--A resolution approving and adopting a tax e differential plan for industrial properties in the Highway 99 industrial area. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolutions. Roll call vote; the motion carried, 5:1, Councilors Holmer, Miller, Schue, Bennett, and Bascom voting aye; Councilor Wooten voting nay. VI. PERFORMING ARTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE: RESIDENCY APPLICATIONS City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Hult Center Director Bob Schutz presented the staff report. He said the approval of residency status at the Hult Center for the Performing Arts would complete the application process for local performing arts organizations that successfully had submitted the application materials. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Schutz said Oregon Repertory Theatre had not submitted a residency application, and he did not know the reason. He said no theater group yet had submitted a residency application. Ms. Wooten asked about requirements that might have prohibited or obstructed theater groups from applying. Mr. Schutz said he thought ORT probably would meet the qualifications, which included a 501 C-3 status and a continuing e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 12 program at the center. He said financial requirements stated that organizations must be current each year, and that might have discouraged some e groups, although he was not certain of that. Mr. Holmer said he had asked earlier about the Eugene Festival of Musical Theater. Mr. Schutz said the festival had submitted an incomplete application. He also said the Eugene Opera had not applied because of their general manager's illness, but he knew that group intended to apply in the future. Res. No. 4062--A resolution approving residency status at the Hult Center for the Performing Arts for The Eugene Symphony Orchestra, The Eugene Ballet Company, The Oregon Bach Festival, and the Oregon Mozart Players as recommended by the Res. No. 14 of the Hul t Center for the Per- forming Arts Commission. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:0. VII. APPLICATION FOR ENTERPRISE ZONE BOUNDARY CHANGE City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Lee Beyer of the Development Department presented the staff report. He said the item before the council was a request to authorize the City Manager to apply to enlarge the West Eugene Enterprise Zone by slightly less than two miles. He noted e that last year's application had been restricted by State requirements to including entire census tracts, and that the State Legislature this year had changed that requirement to allow cities to draw boundaries as they desired. Mr. Beyer said the proposal would bring in additional vacant industrial land in the west end of the city, including areas known as Willow Creek Industrial Park, the Greenhill Technology Park, and the area on Airport Road that was within the urban growth boundary. Res. No. 4061--A resolution authorizing the City Manager to make application to the State of Oregon to change the boundaries of the West Eugene Enterprise Zone, and amending Resolution No. 400l. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:0. VIII. WORK SESSION: NO CRUISING ORDINANCE City Manager Mike Gleason said staff expected the work session on the no- cruising ordinance to take some time, and he recommended rescheduling the item for a work session next Monday night, October 26, after the regular evening meeting. Ms. Freedman said the next open schedule might be in November, December, or next year. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 13 Mr. Miller said he thought the council should address the item if it was scheduled on Monday, for the benefit of audience members. e Mr. Bennett asked Ms. Schue's opinion on the issue. Ms. Schue said she had not made a decision and was awaiting staff comments and legal advice. Ms. Wooten said timing was not critical, and a delay did not matter to her, but she preferred not to hold a work session after the regular council meeting. Councilors agreed to schedule a work session on the no-cruising ordinance as the first item after the public hearing items Monday night. At 1:42 p.m., Mr. Holmer adjourned the meeting to October 26, 1987. (Recorded by Leslie Scales) mncc1021 . e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 14