Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1988 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall May 18, 1988 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Debra Ehrman, Cynthia Wooten, Jeff Miller, Emily Schue, Roger Rutan. Mayor Obie called to order the adjourned meeting of May 11, 1988. I. ITEMS FROM CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER e A. Revisions to Sign Code Mayor Obie said that he would not be present at the council meeting the following Monday eveni~g when the Sign Code revisions would be brought to the council. He said that Deputy Public Works Director Terry Smith is in the audience today to briefly discuss the proposed revisions and and answer any questions. Mr. Smith distributed a corrected copy of the ordinance and briefly discussed the changes being made to the code. He noted that language dealing with the content of signs has been removed. Signs are discussed in terms of the type of structure and type of sign. The part of the ordinance dealing with the geographic and site restrictions remain as is, while the .portion about the type of signs has been removed. Mr. Smith discussed the portions of the ordinance regarding temporary signs, special signs, and "exempt" signs. Mr. Smith concluded by saying that the staff has attempted to create a situation where nearly all existing signs will remain unaffected by the interim code. Any sign not allowed by the existing code because of size, height, or structure, would still not be allowed. Ms. Wooten observed that the interim Sign Code leaves unclear whether or not murals are allowed in the City. She said she is concerned about this situa- tion. She did not want this to be a permanent prohibition in the Sign Code. Mr. Smith said there is a section in the existing code describing mural regulation and the permitting process. The standards were that a mural could be permitted if it was noncommercial in nature. Due to various court ac- tions, the City has not been able to legally distinguish between commercial and noncommercial ~peech as the likely outcome of a court test. Because the City is unable to make this distinction, it would be in the position of allowing all murals regardless of content. For this reason, in the interim code, the section on murals has been removed and language has been included regarding building highlights and decorations. He said that simple, geomet- ric, abstract designs would be allowed by this language, but more representa- e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 1 e e e tional designs would not be allowed. Ms. Wooten was unsure of the distinc- tion between commercial and noncommercial murals in light of the language "decorative.11 Mr. Gleason said the debate about what the regulations will mean is important and one on which the council will spend some time. Mayor Obie observed that he did not think anyone in the community wanted to regu- late murals at all. Mr. Smith said the staff would like to research how other communities have dealt with this issue and what the relevant case law is. Mr. Holmer said that he assumed that a mural representation has as much to do with free speech as the written content of a sign. He had assumed from his reading of the interim code that murals were allowed. Mr. Sercombe said that IImuralll referred to a large representation on the side of a building. Anyone can put a mural within their allowable signage square footage under the code. The issue is, whether outside that area of regulation, the City wishes to allow broad wall paintings in excess of that and, when does that mural become something more than a mural and become a sign. Mr. Sercombe said these are subtle distinctions requiring work. The recommendation is to put this issue aside and work on the issue during the revision, meanwhile allowing for murals under the existing limitations. Ms. Wooten said she would like an expression from the council that it wishes this problem fixed before it adopts a permanent sign code. Mayor Obie said he read the proposal and felt in some areas it was less than perfect. He suggested that staff meet with the sign industry for information and coopera- tion. He felt the cou~cil should hear from these people. Mr. Smith said that staff plans to meet with industry representatives soon. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Smith said the University of Oregon and Lane Regional Arts Council had not been informed of the interim sign code, and he would see that they were informed. B. Defeat of Lane County Serial Levy Ms. Wooten noted that the council members had expressed concern in the budget process over the Lane County Library serial levy, soon to appear on the June ballot, and its impact on the City's library. She suggested that the council draft a resolution supporting the serial levy. Mr. Gleason agreed to return with suggestions regarding how support could be best and most effectively expressed by council. C. Nuclear-Free Zone Referring to the previous night's vote on the nuclear-free zone, Ms. Wooten asked the council to consider adopting the minimally revised version of the ordinance. She asked that this item be placed on an agenda as soon as possi- ble. Mayor Obie noted that the community has twice indicated its support for the nuclear-free zone. He said that the only question that remained, and some would say there was no question, was which nuclear-free zone did they want? Mayor Obie suggested that the council hold a public hearing and take a vote. He believed this public hearing and vote should take place within 30 days. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 2 e e e Ms. Bascom agreed with Mayor Obie. She asked if the council needed to limit its options to the two previously discussed, or if other routes could be explored. She felt the two versions presented were extreme. Mayor Obie said his preference was to limit the debate to the two previously discussed ver- sions. Ms. Schue said she liked the idea of a public hearing, characterizing the issue as lithe public's issue." Mr. Holmer said if there were other viable proposals, they would be identified at the public hearing. Based on council consensus, Mayor Obie asked Mr. Gleason to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Gleason suggested Monday, June 13. The council accepted this date. Mr. Rutan asked staff for figures regarding how much the nuclear-free zone issue had cost the City to-date. D. Election Results Mayor Obie congratulated those councilors who had run for re-election and been elected. He congratulated Ms. Schue and Mr. Miller on their mayoral races and said that the participation of each as run-off opponents was bene- ficial to the entire community. E. SHO Birthday Ms. Bascom noted that SHO held its Fifth Birthday. The organization has taken more than 100,000 people on Hult Center tours. F. Response to Citizen Letter Ms. Ehrman said she had received a letter from a downtown mall business person regarding a missed deadline. She asked the staff to consider a waiver of the penalty as the deadline had been missed by a day. Mr. Gleason said he would look into the situation. G. Joint Parks Committee Ms. Schue reported on that morning's Joint Parks Committee (JPC) meeting. She said there will be a community forum regarding Monroe Park at Monroe Park on Saturday at 1 p.m. Ken Tollenaar of the JPC will be in attendance. The Commission for the Rights of Minorities is sponsoring the forum. The JPC had assumed that it was in charge of this issue, and Ms. Schue wished to make sure the council is comfortable with this assumption. Ms. Wooten asked for clarification of the JPC's role. Ms. Schue said that the JPC is taking a lead, decision-making role on the resolution of this issue as it advises the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department as well as the council. She needed to know if the council wished to be further involved. Ms. Wooten said she would like to be involved in any decision-making JPC undertakes, depending on JPC consensus, the neighborhood consensus, and her own conclu- sions. Mr. Miller asked that the JPC bring its recommendation to the coun- cil. He added he would attend Saturday's meeting. Ms. Ehrman said that, dependi~g on how the meeting goes, it may not be necessary to bring this issue back to the council. Mayor Obie agreed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 3 e e e H. Joint Social Services Fund Hearing Ms. Ehrman reminded the council that there is a public hearing on May 19 regarding the Joint Social Services Fund. The hearing will be held from 6:30 to 9 p.m. II. ADVISORY VOTE ON WILLAMETTE STREET CONSTRUCTION Mr. Weinman of the Development Department gave the staff report. He noted that the council requested ballot language that would establish voter senti- ment regarding the opening of Willamette Street to traffic. He referred to the ballot title, ballot question, and ballot explanation in the council packet. The number of words in each is limited by State law. Mr. Weinman said there are three potential election dates available in 1988: August 9, September 20, and November 8. The former dates would likely be mail ballots, while November 8 is the date of the general election. He noted the legal deadline for submission of the ballot questions and the deadline for inclu- sion in the Voters Pamphlet. Mr. Weinman said the council decides whether or not to issue a Voters Pamphlet. If the council agrees on an election date and the ballot language, the staff will return in one week with a resolution. Mr. Holmer suggested that action by the council be divided into three votes: one vote on the statement as staff has submitted it; one vote on the date of the election; and a third vote on whether or not to have a Voters Pamphlet. Mayor Obie agreed to this process. Council members discussed the first question. Ms. Ehrman said that the title refers to "advisory vote"; in the explanation there is a phrase lithe council intends to abide by the voter advice." She questioned whether this is an advisory vote. Mr. Sercombe said this vote would not bind the council; it is, rather, a representation of the .council's intent at this time. Mr. Rutan felt this should be discussed. He said the grammar of the ballot question is bad and does not read in a straightforward manner. Mr. Holmer suggested that the ballot question read "Should Willamette Street between 8th and 10th avenues be reconstructed for pedestrian and limited traffic uses?" The council agreed that Mr. Holmer1s phrasing was clear and easy to understand. Ms. Wooten questioned why the word "limitedll was included as the council had previously voted not to pro- vide a concept of the redesign. Ms. Ehrman said the words "limited" and "through" could be taken out. Ms. Bascom expressed concern that the public might interpret a yes vote as a blank check for the council to fill out. She asked if a redesign to Broadway only was possible. Mayor Obie said this was a different decision that should be made before the decision to put the measure on the ballot was decided. Ms. Schue cautioned against asking for the voters' opinions and not following it. She said the council should not ask for the voters' opinions if it did not want them. Ms. Wooten said she liked the language about abiding by voter advice. Regarding Ms. Bascom's suggestion, Ms. Wooten said the council would be lImonkeying up the works" to try to develop another option for voters. She said she would be willing to accept Mr. Holmer's language on the ballot question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 4 - Mr. Holmer said the pending issue before the council was the recommendation submitted to it by the Planning Commission and the Downtown Commission to open Willamette Street to vehicular traffic between 8th and 10th avenues. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to accept the re- quested ballot language as amended. Ms. Ehrman said the ballot title should include the word "limited" rather "through" to conform to the ballot question. Mr. Holmer accepted Ms. Ehrman's suggestion as an amendment to his motion. The motion carried, 5:2, with councilors Wooten and Bascom voting no. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the Eugene City Council adopt a resolution to keep Willamette Street closed with mandatory review in 24 months. Ms. Schue asked Ms. Wooten if she preferred that approach to going to the voters. Ms. Wooten responded she felt the council could resolve this issue now and avoid dragging out the process further. She said that she thought Willamette Street should remain closed now but that the opportunity to open it could remain a possibility. Ms. Schue said it seemed to her that such action would put possible development on hold for two years. Ms. Wooten said she did not believe that the City would receive a firm proposal for the redevelopment of the 8th Avenue and Willamette Street site within the next ~ two years. Mr. Miller said he had a problem with Ms. Wooten's approach based on the confusion that exists in the community regarding the pros and cons of down- .town and its importance to Eugene's future. He said he thought community airing of the issue was needed, and putting the question on the ballot pro- vides that opportunity. If the measure failed and future development depend- ed on the opening of the street, the measure could be submitted to the voters again. Mr. Holmer said the council's division over this issue indicated why it needed to be referred to the voters. Mr. Rutan said the decision to go to the voters with this issue had been made at a previous meeting after lengthy discussion and nothing has changed since then. Ms. Ehrman said that while she seconded the motion on the floor for the purpose of discussion, she did not intend to vote for it. Ms. Ehrman said the council needed voter a0vice on the opening of Willamette Street. The council needs to let the community and the City's development staff know in what direction it intends to go. Ms. Wooten withdrew her motion. Ms. Ehrman withdrew her second. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 5 e Ms. Wooten said she did not want Willamette Street opened. She believed the community does not want the street opened. By going to the voters and in- cluding language in the ballot explanation that indicates the council intends to abide by the vote closes the council's options to open the street forever. Ms. Wooten says that circumstances change and she had intended by her motion to protect the council's flexibility. e Mr. Gleason clarified that the word IIthroughll was still included in the ballot explanation. Mr. Gleason asked the council members for clarification regarding access to the parking structure off Willamette Street by developers if the question was rejected. The council indicated that the question would be decided when it came up. Ms. Schue said that the two questions were not the same as one regarded through traffic and the other regarded access to a parking structure. She said the word "throughll was important, and the coun- cil did not want to close its options too tightly. The example Mr. Gleason referred to was an excellent one. She said the council needed to be clear. Mr. Holmer said no legislative body can bind its successors and circumstances change, calling for modification. Ms. Schue said the council needs to be able to explain to voters what the ballot question means, and there seems to be a difference of opinion on the council. Ms. Ehrman said that the language change from IIthroughll to "limited" refers to any traffic. If the vote is no, Ms. Ehrman would assume that there would be no traffic whatsoever on Willamette Street between 8th and 10th avenues. Mr. Sercombe said the coun- cil should be consistent between the title, the question, and the explana- t ion. If the council intends to stri ke the word IIthrough" to i ndi cate that closure would be to any limited traffic, the effect of the question is to put before the voters the issue of through traffic alone. Ms. Schue said she wants to ask the voters if they want through traffic, with the understanding that there can be some limited traffic in certain situa- tions. She did not know why they could not figure out a way to do so. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to reconsider the inclusion of the word IIthroughll in the ballot title and ques- tion. The motion passed, 7:0. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to amend the ballot title to read "reconstruction allowing limited through traf- fic." Ms. Ehrman asked if councilors interpreted a IInoll vote on such language to mean there is still the possibility to have limited, but not through, traf- fic. If so, she did not think that was keeping faith with the voters and would cause confusion. Ms. Schue asked if Ms. Ehrman was uncomfortable with limited access traffic such as they were discussing. Ms. Ehrman said she would be if the public voted against the question. Ms. Schue said the coun- cil needs to get across to the public what it is after and it was clear to her that it has not done so. Ms. Wooten said it would be difficult to commu- nicate so many possible options to the public. Ms. Schue said when she uses the word "through,1I she refers to opening the street. Ms. Bascom supported giving the voters a design and dollar figures for opening Willamette Street. ,e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 6 ~ Mayor Obie asked if the ballot explanation could be expanded to include the presumption that the public recognizes that the council retains certain options if the vote is no. Mr. Gleason replied that if the council wished to make an affirmative statement about what it meant, it could do so in the Voters Pamphlet. Mr. Sercombe added that the council could do so in much the same way as it had with the nuclear-free zone. Mr. Rutan said the council's objective is to get input from the community as to whether or not it wants traffic introduced on Willamette Street. If circumstances change, the issue could be reconsidered in the future. The council cannot provide for all possibilities. The motion passed 5:2, with councilors Wooten and Bascom voting no. Ms. Ehrman said she voted for the motion because she wants to hear from the public. She said she would interpret a "no" vote as a vote against any traffic whatsoever. Mayor Obie asked staff to return with findings that can be included in the Voters Pamphlet on the election resolution. e Ms. Schue said she disagreed with Ms. Ehrman's conclusions. pret a "noll vote to be against through traffic only and not for short stretches. She said this needs to be resolved at 1 eve 1 . She would inter- 1 imited traffic the council Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to hold the election on September 20. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Holmer said that he supported the September election date because the pamphlet deadline for the August election is June IS, and he felt the pamphlet materials must be carefully prepared. Ms. Wooten preferred November 8 due to the greater voter turnout. Ms. Schue agreed. Mr. Holmer said the issue would be lost in the presidential elec- tion. He felt the issue needed a civic focus and would receive adequate attention September 20. Mayor Obie favored the November election date. Mr. Rutan said that he understood the vote would be by mail. Ms. Schue said that a September 20 election would cost the City more money. The motion failed 2:5, with councilors Bascom, Ehrman, Miller, Schue, and Wooten voting no. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to include the question on the November 8 ballot. The motion carried unani- mous ly. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 7 e Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Miller, that there be a Voters Pamphlet on the issue in question. There was a brief discussion of the cost of the pamphlet. Ms. Wooten asked about the staff follow-up on the previous pamphlet. Ms. Bellamy said there were 325 responses, and the results would be available the following Wednes- day. Council consensus was to wait for the results of Ms. Bellamy's report. Mr. Holmer withdrew his motion. Ms. Ehrman withdrew her second. III. DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN Mr. Rutan said the plan in front of the council reflected the vast amount of public input the Council Committee on Economic Development (CCED) had re- ceived in the public hearing process and through direct contact with such groups as the Chamber of Commerce. He asked the council members to let CCED know if there were any parts of the document that they did not support for inclusion in the document during the final public hearing process prior to council adoption. e Ms. Pryor highlighted some of the substantive changes in Chapters 3 and 4 (pages 18-25 of the plan). These changes were generally provided to give greater definition and clarity to the concepts outlined in those chapters. The clarifications note the existence of other adopted plans outlining the City's role in the provision of public services, define the scope of the region alluded to in the plan, detail the City.s partnerships with other private and public organizations and its role in proposed strategies, and refine the intent of specific strategies. Ms. Pryor discussed the strategies added to the document since November 1987, including encouraging support of a stable arts community, fostering a pos- itive business image, and applying performance standards to industrial zon- ing. Under marketing and recruitment, strategies have been added regarding Eugene as a place to retire and Eugene as an artistic, cultural, and enter- tainment center. An additional strategy under special events and cultural affairs concerns working with the Visitors and Convention Bureau on a long- range focus for special events in the area. A strategy regarding focus on downtown to enhance its position as a cultural, governmental, and commercial center has been added. Lastly, three strategies have been added under Eugene as a Center for Special Events and Cultural Affairs: 1) to work with local artists and arts group to strengthen their role in the community's economy, 2) to coordinate marketing and public relations plans of City facilities with local arts groups, and 3) to encourage the use of downtown for special events. Mr. Rutan said that CCED has been responsive to the input received and had stayed focused on its task. He said the tough part of the plan will be converting it to an action program. Ms. Bascom said the Planning Commission had been discussing housing as an economic issue, and she asked if there had e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 8 e been any language added to the plan to reflect the importance of housing. Mr. Rutan said the committee chose not to add such language. IV. STATUS OF SEWER UTILITY Ms. Andersen said this was one of a series of work sessions the Public Works Department will be scheduling with the council over the next several months. She noted that the council had adopted a two-year rate at its last rate-set- ting process that will be effective through June 1989. Ms. Andersen said staff will be coming back to the council at future meetings with the status of the local Sewer Fund, the financial projections for the fund over the next six years, the Storm Drainage Study, and an Amazon Channel Floodway Study. e Mr. Jones presented the results of the performance audit conducted on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's sewer functions by Coopers and Lybrand. He noted that the executive summary of the report is in the council packet, and full copies are available upon request. The audit fo- cused on the appropriateness of administrative and operational costs; opera- tional systems and procedures; administrative systems and procedures, bill- ings, collections, the payment process between the cities, and the transfer of that money to MWMC; appropriateness of indirect rates charged by the cities for services performed for MWMC; the budgetary process; and the re- gional sewer user rate schedule. Mr. Jones said that Coopers and Lybrand had compared MWMC to seven plants in the west and found that costs, on average, were lower than that of comparable jurisdictions. Ms. Wooten asked how the plants were chosen. Mr. Jones said the plants were not specifically identi- fied and were not identical to Eugene's, but were selected on their basis of similarity of problems, treatment process, complexity, and sophistication. Mr. Gleason added that there are not many plants in the Northwest comparable to Eugene's. The plants were chosen for review by Coopers and Lybrand. Mr. Jones said the audit revealed good operational procedures and policies in place on the Eugene side of the program. The plant has a good maintenance program, storage and purchasing system, and adequate technical employee training. A five-year CIP is in place. The plant is currently conducting a staffing evaluation. In Springfield, MWMC staff is implementing a transition plan keyed to construction completion. Mr. Jones discussed the auditors' recommendations, including enhancement of the maintenance management program, development of work standards for mainte- nance repair tasks, development of a capital budgeting process consistent with other City departments, and development of a long-term management plan. Mr. Jones said that the auditors found that the cost of billing through the Springfield Utility Board and ~ugene Water & Electric Board is very reason- able and the best choice compared to other options for MWMC. The audit recommends that time of remittance to MWMC be shortened. This is being reviewed. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Jones said the remittance time is about 56 days from EWEB and 49 days from SUB. Ms. Wooten asked how much EWEB makes on the interest for the City. Mr. Jones said that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 9 e he was unsure of the figure for EWEB; he believed the figure in the audit for overall gain to MWMC was on the order of $35,000 per year. Ms. Andersen said the staff was working to shorten the time frame. Mr. Jones discussed the charges levied by the cities of Springfield and Eugene. He said these charges are based on services actually used by MWMC and are very reasonable. The audit recommended that MWMC file the necessary documents to recover the indirect cost of grant funds expended subsequent to 1983. This figure could be from $150,000 to $200,000. Mr. Holmer clarified that this was recovery from the Federal government. Mr. Jones said the auditors recommended that MWMC simplify the budget prepa- ration process. Mr. Jones discussed the utility's subsidized rates, noting the subsidy fund was created in prior periods when revenues exceeded costs. The fund will be expended by FY90. This subsidy on the regional side equals about 46 percent; on the local side it is about 20 percent of the total. The auditors found that MWMC's unsubsidized rates are within the reasonable range of other sewer utilities, and recommended that rate payers be prepared for a IIrate shockll when the fund is expended, and to raise rates to the unsubsidized level. Mr. Jones said that the auditors found, in general, that the operation of MWMC is successful and,MWMC has met its goals. e Ms. Andersen said staff will return the following month with the report on the local fund status and forecast what the local rate structure will look like in the following year. Mr. Rutan said two different terms have been used: performance evaluation and audit, which are two different things. Ms. Andersen said that the term .used was "performance audit.1I The audit is not a financial audit. Mr. Rutan asked if the audit was put out for competitive bid. Ms. Andersen replied yes, and said approximately six companies responded. Responding to a question from Mayor Obie, Ms. Andersen said that Springfield is responsible for the administrative side of the operation and they are looking at personnel efficiencies. The City of Eugene is looking at the staffing plan on the operational side and staff has projected reductions. The meeting was adjourned at 1:36. Re s p:c: f~.l, 1 y.?-u~~ 11 t~ -/' '.' '. ... .......-.. ' "'A?".,Jc , '~";"'=--.;?/~/' (~,., .! Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Leslie Scales/Kimberly Young) mncc 051888 - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 1988 Page 10