Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1988 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall October 19, 1988 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Rob Bennett, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan. The adjourned meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Council President Cynthia Wooten. 1. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER A. Cable Installation Mr. Bennett said he had received a letter from a constituent living in the Judkins Height area who is concerned that cables are not being installed underground. Mr. Bennett said it is his understanding that within the city - limits and the urban growth boundary (UGB) new cable installation would be underground. Mr. Sercombe did not know if the franchise agreement requires underground cable installation. He said he would pursue this issue. B. Response to Letter from Koke Printing Mr. Holmer said council members received a letter from Koke Printing regarding public contracting. He asked for a staff response to that letter. C. Campaign Reports Mr. Holmer said he had reviewed the financial reports of candidates for City offi ce. He distributed a memo regarding these reports to council members. Mr. Holmer said he feels the financial reports provide insight into a candidate's views. Ms. Wooten was unsure Mr. Holmer's memorandum had any relevance to official council business and asked that the information be viewed in that light. Mr. Holmer felt the information was relevant to council business and said his memorandum detailed why. D. Meth Lab Clean-up Mr. Miller asked about the City's policy regarding procedures to follow in cleaning up meth labs. Ms. Wooten said there is pending Federal legislation that would assist State and local governments with the financial cost of bringing residences up to a habitable condition. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 19, 1988 Page 1 e E. Litter Problem in University Area Ms. Bascom said there is a tremendous litter problem in the area around 13th Avenue and Alder Street near the University of Oregon. She said there are not trash receptacles in that area and asked who was responsible for providing those. Mr. Gleason explained that the City only provides trash receptacles in parks and on the mall (where businesses contribute to the expense); private businesses are responsible for providing receptacles in front of their businesses. F. Use of Retired Police Officers Ms. Bascom gave Mr. Gleason an article about a police department in Cleveland that uses retired police officers to provide extended service at lower cost. She suggested that Eugene explore this option. G. Irkutsk Visit Costs Ms. Schue said there are people in the community who think the City spent a lot of money on the Irkutsk visit. She asked staff to make it clear that fundraising and private donations financed most of the visit. Ms. Wooten said Mayor Obie felt the visit from the Irkutskian delegation was very successful. She added that the Irkutsk Sister City Committee is a committee independent of the City; the committee raised approximately $17,000 e to offset the vast majority of costs associated with the visit. Ms. Bellamy felt this figure probably did not include all of the in-kind contributions. Mr. Bennett asked if the council has a policy regarding things the City should be involved in so that staff has some way to monitor how and where to focus its efforts. Ms. Wooten said she, Ms. Bascom, and Mayor Obie feel there is a major gap in council policy regarding this issue. She said they are appreciative and grateful that staff is flexible enough to respond to projects on a continuous basis but are also concerned about it. Ms. Wooten felt the issue should be a topic of discussion for the new mayor and council at the first quarterly process session. Mr. Gleason agreed that this is a very important issue. He said sometimes the City gets involved in projects by lIacquiescence,lI but once committed to an event, it is essential that it goes well. This sometimes takes a massive relocation of staff effort. Mr. Holmer pointed out the necessity of anticipating the expense before acquiescing to take part in a project. Ms. Wooten said it is often difficult to raise serious questions about the culpability of the City in an event when people are very excited about the event. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 19, 1988 Page 2 e H. Building Permit Processing Ms. Wooten said she has been receiving calls about the processing of building permit applications. She said the callers have felt the rate of processing is unacceptable and she asked what has been done to expedite the process. Mr. Gleason said the council would have a work session and report on the issue soon. 1. Friendly Street Speed Zone Ms. Wooten said there has been no satisfactory resolution to the Friendly Street speed zone district. This issue may come before the council soon. I!. BALLOT FOR INTERVIEWEES FOR OPENINGS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN PARTNERSHIP The council discussed whether to hold interviews for the openings on the Planning Commission since incumbents were seeking reappointment to the two openings. Mr. Bennett did not favor holding interviews in this situation. He said there would be no better representative than Jim Ellison, one of the incumbents, and the other, Lloyd Billingsley, is just getting started and should be given a chance to contribute to the Planning Commission. Ms. Bascom favored holding the interviews. She felt it would be a good time to learn about the issues from those already on the commission and to learn e more about the other applicants and perhaps establish an applicant pool. Ms. Schue was in favor of holding the interviews to allow for a more open process. She asked why the council asked for applications if it did not intend to interview for the positions. Mr. Miller felt the council should consider having an open enrollment system so that a pool of applicants could be developed for a commission. He said he felt comfortable reappointing the two incumbents to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holmer said he is concerned both about the council's time and about the time of the applicants who go through the interview process believing it is open. He favored reappointing the incumbents. Ms. Wooten said she would favor reappointing the incumbents and using the interview time to learn about their views and interests in serving on the Planning Commission, and about the issues surrounding planning as they perceive them. Ms. Bascom felt Mike Slattery was a strong candidate and that he should be interviewed as an alternate, in case of resignations from the commission. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to reappoint Jim Ellison and Lloyd Billingsley to the Planning Commission for terms ending December 31, 1992. The motion passed 5:1, with e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 19, 1988 Page 3 e Councilors Wooten, Bascom, Bennett, Holmer, and Miller voting aye, and Councilor Schue voting no. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the council interview Mike Slattery with the understanding that there is no current opening on the commission. Ms. Wooten felt it might be unfair to interview only one of the two remaining candidates for a future opening. She suggested interviewing Mr. Slattery at a time apart from the current interviews. The motion failed 1:5, with Ms. Bascom voting in favor and Ms. Wooten, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Holmer, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Schue voting nay. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Miller, that the council interview Mr. Slattery and Mr. Strong at a future time. The motion carried 4:2, with Ms. Wooten, Ms. Bascom, Mr. Bennett, and Ms. Schue voting aye; and Mr. Holmer and Mr. Miller voting no. The council indicated its choice of interviewees for the Metropolitan- Partnership by ballot. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to interview Mr. Neustadter, Mr. Berman, Mr. Adams, and Ms. Wagenknecht for the e one opening on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Partnership. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. WORK SESSION: URBAN RENEWAL PLAN UPDATE (DISTRICT EXPANSION/ DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS/FINANCING Bob Hibschman, Development Department, reviewed a map indicating productive and non-productive land-use ratios in the Central Eugene Project. He said collectively, the improvement/value ratio is just under 3:1 in the core area. An improvement/land ratio of 3:1 is an indication of land in productive use. Mr. Hibschman showed council members a graph of the assessed value within the renewal district over an 18-year period. There was a significant increase in assessed values between 1974 and 1984. The district began to stagnate after that point. From 1986 to 1987, the assessed value decreased by a total of $9.5 million. Of this decrease, $6 million can be attributed to real property values, $1 million to personal property, and $2 million to utility values. Mr. Hibschman said the County Assessor's office recently estimated the assessed value had dropped an additional $2 million; staff is still waiting for an exact accounting of what comprises the loss. He said the Hilton accounts for approximately one-third of the loss, with another two-thirds broadly caused by the devaluation of property due to the performance of e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 19, 1988 Page 4 e businesses and high vacancy rates. Mr. Bennett asked staff to identify the locations of properties that have contributed to the other two-thirds of the decrease in assessed values. Mr. Farkas noted that property owners who contributed to the latest drop in assessed values probably petitioned to have their assessment values lowered. He added that assessed value is not the only, or necessarily the best, indicator of activity downtown. Mr. Hibschman showed a chart illustrating how assessed value yields tax increment revenue, using the proposed Pankow development at the corner of 8th Avenue and Willamette Street as an example. He said generally development is equated with increment development potential. The increment generated from the office portion of the proposed development could conceivably be used to finance a library in a portion of the building. Mr. Hibschman said the private component of the office building ($18 to $20 million) could yield a $6 million bond based on its increment flow. A free-standing library would not generate any increment flow. Mr. Gleason said the increment generated by the Pankow development would probably pay for the shell of the library. Development costs for the interior, and operation and maintenance costs would require additional funding. Mr. Holmer asked if there has been a legal study of the use of tax increment moneys to construct a library. Mr. Sercombe said the City Attorney's office has reviewed that issue and concluded that it was a permissible use of tax increment funds if the development is consistent with the urban renewal plan. e Mr. Gleason felt it would be beneficial to the downtown area to have the library at this site. He said the activity of the library has a potential to draw major retailers to the downtown area. Mr. Gleason also felt a cultural link between the library and the Hult Center could be created; this link might be beneficial in marketing the downtown area. Another benefit of bUilding the library in conjunction with this development is that construction costs would be lower because Pankow is principally a building company skilled in economical construction. Additionally, Pankow would develop parking and pay the operation and maintenance costs as well as taxes on it. Library patrons would be able to use the parking for free in the evenings and on weekends and would have easy access to the Parcade during regular hours. He said if the council is serious about building a library, doing it in conjunction with the Pankow development is a very good opportunity. Ms. Wooten asked how the public will be incorporated into this discussion. Ms. Schue was also concerned about this. She said the public knows there are vague plans for a new library, but have no idea that planning process is this advanced. Ms. Schue felt the public should have a chance to help in the planning of the project so they feel some ownership of it. Mr. Farkas said this is a difficult situation because the public process goes much slower than the private sector would like. He said staff has been e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 19, 1988 Page 5 e seeking input from the Library Board and the Friends of Our Library Committee; these groups will help process the issue. Ms. Schue said staff should not assume the Library Board members favor the project in this form; they feel there are many unanswered questions. She added that many members of the public do not favor this site for the library. Mr. Bennett asked about the possibility of holding an executive session to expedite the discussion of this issue. He said the council needs to spend time on the issue now, so the opportunity will not be lost. Mr. Gleason did not feel an executive session would be possible. Mr. Holmer said the library finance committee should be aware that there is not a $6 million limit on the tax increment bond. In response to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Gleason said staff does not have a plan for processing this issue publicly. He said the difficulty of coming up with a plan is that no deal has been made yet. Critical to making the deal will be whether enough leases can be sold. Mr. Gleason said the cost of the project would be covered if Pankow developed an 18-story building. Pankow is only proposing 13 stories, however, and this affects the amount of increment available for financing the library. Mr. Gleason said another difficulty is that the longer deliberations hold up Pankow's development process, the more development will occur in suburban areas rather than downtown. e Mr. Gleason said staff will probably look to the Council Committee on Library Financing to devise a public process and bring a recommendation to council. He suggested dividing the decision into two parts: deciding whether to buy a portion of the building, then deciding what to do with the space. Mr. Gleason said there are several options, including subleasing the shell to other developments or consolidating City office space at the site, until a decision on the library is possible. Ms. Wooten said the City must find a way to process this issue publicly because the public cannot be excluded from a decision this important. She added that it is imperative that council members and the public be kept informed about staff's ideas regarding this project. Mr. Gleason felt the Pankow deal must be closed within the next three months or the opportunity will be lost. He feels there will not be a better chance to fulfill the downtown objective of mixed-use and retail development while simultaneously completing the library. Ms. Wooten said she would like to have a process recommendation from the library finance committee. She felt the process will have to include the public in spite of the risks. Ms. Wooten asked staff to make it clear to Pankow that if the library is part of the development, the public will have to be given a chance to participate. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 19, 1988 Page 6 e Mr. Holmer asked Mr. Sercombe if tax increment money from the rest of the district is also available to fund a project on this site. Mr. Sercombe said technically the money could be used for these purposes, but it might not be practically feasible. Ms. Wooten thought Pankow should be encouraged to complete the design development drawings, including the library, to give the council and public more to base its decision on. Mr. Gleason said these drawings are expensive and the City would have to pay for them. Mr. Farkas pointed out that Pankow would develop the shell of the library. The interior could be designed at a later point by another developer. He said design of the library space is inconsequential to whether the deal is made now. In response to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Farkas said ownership of the library shell would be the subject of negotiation. Ms. Wooten asked staff to provide a suggestion for expedient public processing of this issue for the council's next discussion on the library. Mr. Bennett felt it is important for the councilors to have their questions answered so it can be determined whether there is a consensus about the direction to proceed. He said if there is a consensus, it could influence the focus of the public process which would become a concentrated effort to market this site to the public rather than a consideration of multiple options. e The meeting was adjourned to October 24, 1988. Respectfully submitted, h;L~ "/}.7' ,'<l4' ,.. ~~~t'~~~~~:~d;;~ Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Tanya Northman) MNCC 101988 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 19, 1988 Page 7