Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/1989 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall October 25, 1989 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Rob Bennett, Shawn Boles, Emily Schue, Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Bobby Green. The adjourned meeting of October 23, 1989, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER This item was not covered. II. WORK SESSION: URBAN RENEWAL PLAN UPDATE Abe Farkas, Planning and Development Director, reminded the council that this e is an update to the 1968 Urban Renewal Plan. The goal of the update is to change the plan to correspond with changes that have been made with respect to urban renewal since 1968. The State has taken the responsibility for urban renewal from the Federal government. 11th WILLAMETTE DEVELOPMENT Bob Hibschman, Planning and Development Department, reported on the 11th Willamette Project. Mr. Hibschman noted that the concept of this project is for a mixed-use housing/commercial development project. Referring to a point in Mr. Hibschman's presentation, Mr. Holmer questioned whether an agreement has been reached on the negotiation of the parking loan. It was Mr. Holmer's understanding that the parking cost was supposed to be the developer's responsibility. Mr. Hibschman responded that because this is predominantly a housing project, it is possible that the project will receive some financial assistance for parking. No assumptions are being made to this effect, however. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Hibschman said that the terms of the loan could be similar to those of the loan for the previous developer. Mr. Boles encouraged the council to consider diverse options with respect to these projects in an effort to increase alternative modes in the downtown area. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 1 e Mr. Bennett noted that in light of the difficulty in attracting housing in the downtown area, the council should give its support to this project. Mr. Bennett encouraged the council to analyze the extent of its commitment toward providing housing downtown. Mr. Boles shared Mr. Bennett's concerns. In reference to the November 6 public hearing on the update of the Urban Renewal Plan, Ms. Ehrman indicated that she thought the public hearing would encompass the plan as a whole, rather than individual portions of the plan. In response, Mr. Sercombe, the City Attorney, said that the City is not legally required to hold a public hearing on individual projects prior to giving them authorization. He stressed, however, that although this is not a legal requirement, it is a good practice. A. Pankow Project Abe Farkas, reported on the status of the Pankow Project. The Pankow Company, located in Altadena, California, has been working with the City on this project for the past 15 months. Mr. Farkas noted that the Urban Renewal Agency will be responsible for three core agreements in respect to this project: the ground lease, a development agreement, and a parking agreement. The City requested the Pankow Company to develop, design, and construct an office retail complex that is a minimum of 140,000 square feet. Pankow has also been asked to build a public parking garage with a minimum of 300 parking spaces to be integrated into that complex. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Farkas said parking access, e both entrance and exit, will be off Olive Street. Mr. Boles questioned the rationale behind having Olive Street access rather than 8th Avenue. He noted that there are parking establishments at present that enter and exit from 8th Avenue with seemingly little impact. Mr. Boles expressed concern that requiring access off Olive Street would place additional pressure on Olive Street--forcing it, in effect, to become a north-south arterial. Mr. Farkas responded that this issue of parking access has been discussed with transportation and traffic engineers, and they felt 8th Avenue access would pose a greater problem for traffic flow. Referring to financing for this project whereby the Urban Renewal Agency receives 10% of Pankow's net cash flow on this project in year six, Mr. Miller questioned the prognosis for having any net profit, and asked whether this calculation for determining net profit is a standard procedure. Mr. Farkas said that if there is no net cash flow, Pankow would not be required to pay any fee. He added that net profit determination is a standard practice. Ms. Ehrman inquired about the cost and type of available parking in this garage, and the number of spaces that would be made available to the public. Mr. Farkas stated that this parking would most likely be operated with a "ticket spitter". He estimated that approximately 150 parking spaces would be made available to the public on a daily basis. The monthly cost will exceed $50 per month, which is currently the most expensive parking cost in downtown Eugene. It is important to consider, however, that this higher cost e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 2 e will reflect the additional cost of the land on which the parking is built. Responding to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Farkas said the current site has 180 available spaces. This new proposal would provide available parking for the bUilding tenants and approximately 120 others. Mr. Boles suggested that it might be possible to consider an option where long-term parking subsidizes short-term parking. He requested an analysis of this to consider at the public hearing. Referring to the contract whereby the City Manager has the authority to approve and execute the appropriate agreement, Mr. Holmer questioned what the role of the City Council will be in reviewing these agreements. Mr. Holmer was concerned that it might be possible for new project ideas to be authorized without the council's knowledge and consent. Mr. Farkas responded that when supplemental agreements arise, they will also come before the council for approval. Mr. Rutan inquired about the difference between the tax increment flow for this proposal and for the initial proposal. Mr. Farkas said the initial loan proposal estimated a parking garage to cost between $4-4.5 million; $2 million would be taken from the Parking Reserve and $2.5 million from the Tax Increment Reserve. The initial plan proposal would have substantially reduced the Tax Increment Fund, whereas this proposal does not. Responding to a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Farkas said the $5 million bond is the maximum permitted in the Tax Reform Act. Mr. Holmer indicated he e would like to have a delineation of the public parking spaces at the public hearing. Mr. Holmer expressed concern that the City might be abandoning its principle of ensuring that the developer meet all parking costs associated with development. Mr. Boles added that it is important to consider the consequences of drawing down the Tax Increment Reserves; the method of financing for this project frees up money for other projects whereas that the other project did not. Mr. Boles indicated that he would like to initiate consideration for bicycle transportation, beyond the fundamental placement of bike racks. He would foresee accommodations being made for the establishment of lockers and showers for cyclists, as well as bike racks. Ms. Ehrman inquired whether the parking provided by Pankow would be in accordance with requirements for parking availability for a public library, if the library were located within walking distance. Scott Luell, Planning Development Department, said that if the library were located within 400 feet of the parking structure, it would meet the necessary requirement for available parking. Mr. Farkas noted that this garage will be built with additional capacity for future parking densities which will accommodate other projects in downtown such as the library. Mr. Rutan asked Mr. Farkas if he felt this is the best site for a public parking garage. Mr. Farkas indicated that this is clearly the most cost-effective site, and no other site is being considered. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 3 e In response to Mr. Miller's request for clarification about the bonding capacity of this project, Mr. Farkas said that the bonding capacity is generated from the ability of a project to capture revenue. Without the office tower, the current renewal district doesn't have the financial capabilities to float such a bond. He added that this bonding provision is site-specific. Mr. Rutan reminded the council that it is the the City's job as an urban renewal agency to promote and develop the downtown area. When considering the Pankow project, it is important to consider the role of City government as a public agency, to ensure its meeting its obligations as a public entity. Ms. Bascom noted that this particular site has been designated in the past as an underutilized site, and the Pankow project would fulfill the need for site utilization. B. Urban Renewal Plan Mr. Hibschman gave a brief update on the Urban Renewal Plan. He noted that this update is a reflection of the 1984 Downtown Plan and the Metro Area General Plan. The council is responsible for approving the Urban Renewal Plan as an amendment to the old plan and adopting the expansion area as a new part of the plan. Referring to the statutes that govern urban renewal planning, Mr. Holmer said e that an urban renewal plan should be accompanied by a report. Part of the objective of the draft is to avoid unnecessary amendments to the plan. He suggested that the council may want to consider altering the plan to deal more specifically with each project. Mr. Sercombe responded that this part of the law that governs urban renewal planning is interpreted to apply only to urban renewal plans adopted after 1979; the format of the update is consistent with the statute. Mr. Holmer indicated that he would like a second interpretation of this statute. Mr. Holmer said that the City Council is supposed to hear recommendations from the Planning Commission before acting on the recommendations of the Urban Renewal Agency. He was concerned that this part of the plan has not been before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bennett indicated that having the library as a public anchor project is encouraging. The Urban Renewal Agency should seriously consider a joint venture, offering substantial financial support to the library. Mr. Holmer said that the proposed movement of the Lane Transit District should be considered in conjunction with Urban Renewal Plan expansion. Mr. Boles encouraged the council to consider whether they want to think about adoption of urban renewal expansion and urban renewal update concurrently, or whether they want to consider these separately. Mr. Boles felt it would be wise to consider approval of the update without the expansion option. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 4 e Mr. Luell, presented an analysis of the estimated income and expenditures with the Urban Renewal Plan update and expansion option for the next 20 years. Referring to a point in Mr. Luell's presentation, Mr. Holmer noted that the analysis is peculiar in its arrangement, having the money for awnings, facades, and tools spent before street design is complete. Mr. Rutan pointed out that one reason not to have a project-specific plan is because a plan, which by design fosters growth, expansion, and improvement, cannot prophecy what will happen in the future. Responding to a question from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Luell said that the $14,000 test in year ten was initiated to examine the possible bonding capacity. Mr. Bennett noted that the library was singled out as a possible recipient of this bond-generated money. Given the council's strong commitment to a public library in the recent future, it gives the wrong impression to name this in year ten. He added that the council should identify some parameters for the library project, and decide what role the Urban Renewal Agency or Tax Increment funds should play in regard to a library. Mr. Boles said that $14 million test for bonding capacity in year ten represents the additional debt the City could take on that could be paid off at the end of 20 years as a result of the proposed strings of income. If this was not added to year ten, the duration of the current debt service could be shortened. Mr. Boles requested Mr. Luell to conduct a test every e three years to test the potential bonding capacity at that time. Mr. Boles requested the Council to redefine the $11 million that is specified in years 16-20 for parking structures to include areas of transportation as well. Mr. Holmer requested a list of those activities that can be performed under the new plan that were not performable under the existing plan. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to hold a public hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan update on November 6, 1989. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. III. CONSIDERATION OF ACTION ON INITIATIVE PETITION CONCERNING CHARTER AMENDMENTS At the October 11, 1989, meeting the Council decided to appoint Councilors Holmer and Ehrman to work with the representatives of the Coalition for Fair Allocation of City Taxes (COFACT) and the City Attorney to develop alternatives to the proposed initiative petition. Ms. Ehrman said she received a letter from COFACT representatives stating that they would be willing to accept this compromised form of the measure, if e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 5 e the council would be willing to accept the wording changes COFACT requested and place this on the next ballot. Referring to the wording changes in Section 1 of the redrafted measure, Mr. Sercombe indicated that the language is technically not accurate. The redrafted measure calls for the addition of the words "or any implementing State statue", and Mr. Sercombe suggested the wording should read "and any implementing State statute." Mr. Holmer said that he felt COFACT would most likely to be willing to accept the replacement of the word "or" with the word "and". Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Sercombe said that by adding this wording, COFACT intends to require any new plan or substantially changed existing plan that uses tax increment financing to be referred to the voters for approval after its adoption by the council. Ms. Ehrman noted that in meeting with COFACT it was never her intention to obviate the need for signatures on an initiative petition. She fully expects that the group will still have to collect the signatures. Mr. Rutan said it is his understanding that if the council does not refer this new version of the petition, COFACT will continue gathering signatures on the initial petition. Ms. Ehrman indicated that if this redrafted measure was not adopted by the council, she thinks that COFACT will generate a more restrictive petition. e Responding to a question from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Sercombe said the only interaction the council has with respect to Urban Renewal Plans is to approve an Urban Renewal Plan and to approve any substantial change to an Urban Renewal Plan. The Urban Renewal Agency has authority to make minor changes and implement the plan without council interaction. Mr. Sercombe added that the only way the city voters can interact with an Urban Renewal Plan is to require a vote on a new plan or a substantial change to an existing plan. In addition, State statute requires urban renewal plans to define in their plan what substantial change means with respect to that particular plan. For this plan, substantial change might include changes in the district boundary, changes that involve new expenditures in tax increment funds, or changes in existing land use designations. Mr. Bennett said this issue is of great concern to him because its not always possible to identify all the necessary information with regard to nature cost of the physical, social, and economic impacts for any Urban Renewal Plan that is being undertaken. Referring to Section 2 of the original measure drawn by COFACT, Ms. Schue questioned whether the voters can legally impose the requirement of a vote on the City Council. Mr. Sercombe said it would not be legal for the voters to impose this requirement on the council. Mr. Rutan said he does not support the substance of the measure in any e version, and therefore, cannot support this redrafted measure. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 6 e Mr. Boles questioned whether this document can constrain public voting to the creation or expansion of existing urban renewal districts and thereby eliminate any consideration of this on a project-by-project basis. Mr. Sercombe said that if a project were inconsistent with the objectives of an existing plan, then a substantial change to the objectives would need to be made for project authorization. Policies within the framework of the existing or updated plan would not require a public vote. Mr. Holmer warned the council that if they do not take the time to offer an alternative draft to COFACT representatives, the council will risk facing a more restrictive measure. Ms. Schue indicated that she is prepared to take such a risk. If COFACT chooses to circulate a more restrictive measure, she believes that such a measure would be more easily defeated. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to refer to the voters the revised proposal prepared by COFACT. The motion failed, 5:3, with Councilors Holmer, Boles, and Bascom voting in favor, and Councilors Green, Ehrman, Rutan, Schue, and Bennett voting opposed. Ms. Ehrman stressed to the council that it was a defect in the system that allowed a citizen1s initiative petition to bypass legal analysis, and the council should consider changing this process in the future. e The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Respectfully SUb~ ~~~ Mich el Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) MNCC 102589 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 7