HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/1989 Meeting (2)
--
e M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall
November 6, 1989
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Shawn Boles, Bobby Green,
Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Debra Ehrman, Mayor Miller.
The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Council
President Ruth Bascom.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Randy Prince, PO Box 927, spoke in favor of forming a citizen advisory
committee to make recommendations on clean air, which he considered the
world's most important environmental issue.
e I!. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes of October 5, 1989, Executive
Session meeting
B. Appointments: Councilor Bennett's Nomination to the Budget
Committee
Don McLoud, 2151 Riverview............ term ending 12/31/92
C. Findings and Recommendations of Hearings Official and Approval of
Improvement Project (Morse Street) (Job #2501)
Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the items
on the City Council Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the
motion carried unanimously, 7:0.
II!. ORDINANCE CONCERNING NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY FRANCHISE
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Tony Mounts, Finance
Division, explained that the ordinance was brought to the council for a first
reading on September 25 and was scheduled for a second reading and action on
October 23. On October 17, Northwest Natural Gas requested that action be
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 1
e postponed to determine if a negotiated settlement could take place.
According to the charter, postponement requires the process for adoption to
revert to its initial stage of first reading.
CB 4174--An ordinance concerning the Northwest Natural Gas
Company franchise, amending Ordinance No. 18439, and
declaring an emergency.
..
Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that Council Bill
4174 be read the first time. Roll call vote; the motion
carried unanimously, 7:0.
The bill was read and a public hearing called for December 4, 1989.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING PATRON USER FEES
City.Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Jennifer King, representing
the Cultural Affairs Commission, reported that the commission proposes
increasing the patron user fee and dedicating the collected fees to the
funding of capital needs of cultural facilities to help address the problems
of deteriorating facilities and equipment without relying on General Fund and
nonuser support. She urged the council to add language to the proposed
ordinance that would specify that "one-half of the total amount of the patron
user fees collected shall be used for City-owned and operated cultural
e facility operations and the remaining one-half shall be used for capital and
equipment expenditures for City-owned and operated cultural facilities.1I
Council President Bascom opened the public hearing.
Benson Snyder, 1945 Woodlawn Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance. He said that performing arts groups have established maximum
ticket prices and the increased patron use fee could deter patrons. He
advocated reinstating room tax support and suggested that charging groups for
the use of specific equipment could help offset the costs of repair and
replacement.
Henrietta Heiny, 3640 Spring Boulevard, supported the ordinance and stressed
the importance of investing in the Hult Center's future to ensure that it
will remain a top-quality facility.
John Baugess, 1576 Walnut Street, said the taxpayers had been mislead as to
how much they would have to pay to support the Hult Center.
Adam Fishman, 3621 East Amazon, supported the increased patron user fee but
said that it could deter potential users of the Cuthbert Amphitheatre if
applied to that facility without adding adequate staging facilities (e.g., a
stage).
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 2
---
e There being no additional requests to speak, Councilor Bascom closed the
public hearing.
Answering questions from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Schutz anticipated that the
increased fee would provide approximately $60,000 in FY90 and $120,000 in
future years, depending on activity. The Capital Improvement Program may
provide funds for the repair of the Hult Center's roof (in about ten years),
while other items on a list of needs are considered "1uxuryll items and could
await available funding.
Mr. Green expressed concern about the basis for costs listed in the capital
outlay projection and said a comparison cost sheet would have been helpful.
Mr. Schutz explained that figures were derived by the Hult Center's operation
director'and assume an inflationary factor. Mr. Gleason said a comparison
sheet would be made available and he reminded councilors that individual
items will be brought up as part of the discussion on the budget prior to
authorization.
Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Boles, Mr. Schutz said that it is hoped
that the fee will make General Fund allocation to capital needs unnecessary,
but he noted that emergency needs are difficult to anticipate. Mr. Gleason
added that while the user fee is an attempt to develop a strategy that will
provide an ongoing source of operating and capital funds, no suggestion is
being made that there will never be a proposal for capital improvement in the
General Fund budget.
e Mr. Boles continued by asking why the language suggested by the Cultural
Affairs Commission that specifically earmarks this revenue for capital
refurbishment was not included in the ordinance. Mr. Gleason responded that
the council's adopted financial policies leave discretion to the Budget
Committee and the City Council as to the distribution of funds in order to
avoid frequent adjustment of ordinances during the budgeting process.
Mr. Holmer added that he would vote against the ordinance if the language
referred to by Mr. Boles were included because he objected to allocating fee
revenues for future unspecified expenses. He considered the budget process
the appropriate avenue for determining specific funding needs.
CB 417S--An ordinance to increase the Patron User Fee from
$.50 to $1; to impose the Patron User Fee at events
held at Cuthbert Amphitheatre; to make these changes
effective for events occurring after December 31,
1989, except those contracted prior to November 1,
1989.
Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill, with
unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by
council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously,
7:0.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 3
e Council Bill 4175 was read the second time by number only.
Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be
approved and given final passage.
Mr. Boles disagreed with Mr. Holmer's earlier statement and stated his
support of the language proposed by the Cultural Affairs Commission.
Roll call vote; the motion carrying 6:1, with Mr. Boles voting
nay, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No.
19647).
V. PUBLIC HEARING: UPDATE OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL
EUGENE PROJECT
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Abe Farkas, Planning and
Development Director, presented an overview of the urban renewal program.
Urban renewal and tax increment financing (the dedicated source of funding
attached to urban renewal by State statute) provide a means of reaching the
goal of urban revitalization. That goal is recognized in the Downtown Plan,
the Economic Development Strategic Plan, and the Metropolitan Area General
Plan. Urban renewal is used as an economic development tool in 35 states and
over 20 jurisdictions in Oregon. Renewal was introduced in Eugene in the
late 1960s and was accompanied by Federal assistance. Since that time,
e Federal funds to cities have been seriously eroded and the burden for
revitalization is now on cities, with limited state assistance. The
recession of the 1980s has slowed the urban renewal plan's progress that was
anticipated in the late 60s. Renewal is not focused on downtown alone;
Eugene has had four renewal districts, with two of them currently active (the
Downtown District and the Riverfront Research Park). A district in the
Bethel area focused on housing rehabilitation for lower-income households and
one in the university area assisted the University of Oregon with needed
expansion.
At this point, Mr. Farkas presented a slide show depicting some of the
results of urban renewal over the past 20 years.
Bob Hibschman, Planning and Development staff, reviewed the process involved
in updating the urban renewal plan. The updated plan represents a
significant amendment to the old plan and recognizes that the program is
incomplete, with seven of the eight objectives of the original plan already
being addressed. Still to be accomplished is the disposition of
two-and-a-half blocks of Urban Renewal Agency-owned, assembled sites. The
plan focuses on the development of the sites and additional parking to
support them. Three of the five parking garages envisioned in the 1968 plan
have been built.
The original plan was specific in terms of sites that needed to be acquired,
cleared, and redeveloped. The amended plan is less specific and is designed
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 4
e for greater flexibility and responsiveness to development initiatives in
order to better reflect the Metro Area General Plan's policy to strengthen
downtown as a regional service center. Other changes to the 1968 plan
eliminate certain land use provisions on acquired property. Parking
requirements have become more concerns of practical needs for development. A
design review committee has been replaced by design guidelines. The amended
plan is proposed to be sunsetted in 20 years, while there was no limit to the
1968 plan.
Expansion of the district to the northeast of downtown includes an area that
uses 20 percent of the districtls capacity to expand and reflects the
Downtown Plan's policy to strengthen the linkages. The council will consider
two different versions of the plan, with one of them proposing expansion and
one not.
Julie Aspinwall-Lamberts, Downtown Commission president, emphasized the
importance of completing the original intent of the plan by pursuing the
construction of public improvements and the disposition of land for
development.
The amended plan addresses seven policies within the Downtown Plan: 1) to
promote the intensity of downtown development; 2) to improve downtown's
ability to serve as a major regional employment center; 3) to encourage the
development of housing in the downtown area; 4) to support the revitalization
of existing downtown retail activity; 5) to support potential office
development; 6) to recognize that City-owned surface parking lots are being
e used on an interim basis and these particular lots are identified for
redevelopment as soon as possible; and 7) to encourage the development of new
parking structures with other uses at the street level.
The Downtown Commission supports the use of design guidelines for
development. The commission recognizes that the projects listed in the
amendment are not approved as part of their inclusion in the renewal plan but
will be subject to annual budget processes and the availability of funds.
The commission supports the construction of parking facilities as leverage
for private development.
Ms. Asp;nwall-Lamberts commented that proposed projects at 8th and Willamette
and at 11th and Willamette have the support of the Downtown Commission and
are considered important for their revitalization of the area and enhancement
of the retail environment of the city.
Mr. Bennett recommended that the council separate the update of the urban
renewal plan from issues associated with specific projects within the update.
He considered the council's first priority to be addressing the plan itself.
Council President Bascom opened the public hearing. She reminded the
audience of the council's ground rules for public hearings and asked those
testifying to limit their comments to three minutes and to request an
extension if necessary.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 5
e Penny Harrison, 81 East 14th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the League of Women
Voters. She requested delaying expansion of the original Downtown Urban
Renewal District until completion of the Metro Area Commercial Study. She
opposed the intrusion of streets in the downtown mall (specifically, the
opening of Olive Street). Ms. Harrison encouraged the council to act with
fiscal responsibility and accountability by living with the mall as it
presently exists.
Dick Briggs, 1401 Willamette Street, spoke as the Governmental Affairs
Coordinator of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce in support of urban
renewal and tax increment financing. Used appropriately, these tools
facilitate public investment and growth. He suggested that tax increment
financing may be a way to assist wetlands mitigation in west Eugene, to
stimulate needed visual improvements along Highway 99, and to assist in
providing infrastructure for low-income housing projects. Mr. Briggs
emphasized the importance of the public's trust in the council's decision and
urged the council to avoid sacrificing the public's confidence for
flexibility and responsiveness. He considered a clear vision of the type of
downtown desired to be a vital component of a successful urban renewal plan.
Glen Rea, 32260 Highway 34, Tangent, Oregon, supported expansion of the Urban
Renewal District and said many projects in the expanded area would benefit
from a public parking facility.
Ruth Miller, 2460 Malabar Drive, represented the Friends of Downtown. She
maintained that the redesign of the central plaza at Broadway and Willamette
e streets should be a higher priority than the opening of streets. She urged
the council to settle the issue of opening Willamette Street soon and said
that any proposal to open any of the mall to traffic should be submitted to
the voters.
Arthur Shapiro, 2742 Bowmont Drive, spoke against the concepts of tax
increment financing and urban renewal which he said have led to an unholy
relationship between the City of Eugene and private investors. He claimed
that the proposed Pankow project involved a greater investment by the City
than by the developer. Mr. Shapiro maintained that the same people could not
fairly serve as city councilors and as the Urban Renewal Agency which he said
represents the interests of a single neighborhood. He urged that urban
renewal end and that the council discontinue social planning. Mr. Shapiro
advised Eugene to emulate San Francisco and Seattle which he said lack urban
renewal.
Richard Miller, 2460 Malabar Drive, spoke on behalf of the Downtown River
Corridor Group which urges the council to expand the Urban Renewal District
to include the property bordering the Willamette River. This would enable
the City to provide public parking to serve expansion and new businesses. He
considered the expansion area to be under-utilized and blighted. Mr. Miller
supported the City's partnership with the private sector to provide public
benefits and amenities.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 6
e Bill Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, identified himself as a long-time Eugene
resident with extensive knowledge of urban renewal. He said the information
on the plan made available by the City on November 3 was too extensive to be
adequately studied prior to the hearing. Mr. Mason opposed the City's
subsidizing developers through the use of tax increment funds. He said that
tax increment revenue is diverted from the General Fund and leads to a higher
tax rate for those outside the area who are forced to pay for the services
that benefit the downtown district.
'.
Douglas Obie, 1591 Mill Street, considered expansion of the Urban Renewal
District boundary necessary to ensure development of the infrastructure
needed if downtown businesses are to grow. He said that Eugene's lack of
parking is a deterrent to business and that surface parking lots are not
economical solutions. He urged the council to provide the same support to
local businesses that it is willing to extend to out-of-town companies (i.e.,
Pankow).
Richard Greene, 766 East 13th Avenue, opposed expanding the Urban Renewal
District boundary. He said that the quality of life in Eugene is being
degraded by high rise office buildings and large discount stores and he
questioned the use of public funds to benefit out-of-state developers. Mr.
Greene maintained that prosperity and growth are not synonymous.
Russ Brink, 2278 Corinthian Court, spoke as the representative of Downtown
Eugene, Incorporated (DEI), a private, nonprofit corporation made up of
. downtown business and property owners who support public and private efforts
to revitalize downtown. DEI favored the proposed update and the specific
projects proposed at 8th and Willamette and 11th and Willamette, and
encouraged the council and the community to resist efforts to eliminate or
restrict the effectiveness of tax increment financing. Mr. Brink cited
Portland, Salem, and Seattle as cities where joint public/private ventures
have been successful in downtown revitalization efforts.
Dick Reese, 541 Willamette Street, Suite 106, identified himself as the owner
of several downtown area properties presently zoned C-3. He accused the City
Manager and his staff of making policy decisions by limiting the information
being given to the City Council. Mr. Reese urged the council to delay a
decision on the expansion area until he has an opportunity to meet with each
councilor privately to provide information previously withheld. He suggested
that parking be eliminated for a two-week period at the 8th and Willamette
and 11th and Willamette sites proposed for development to assess the impact
on downtown merchants. Mr. Reese concluded with a disparaging comment about
jackassery.
Janet Calvert spoke as President of the Lane Transit District Board of
Directors. She anticipated that a preferred site for a new LTD transit
station in downtown Eugene would be announced by mid-1990 and urged the
council to delay its decision on the urban renewal expansion area to allow
coordination with that important development.
- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 7
- Nancy Kibbey, 2130 Greenview, identified herself as chair of the Library
Board and urged the council to take action to allow a new library to be built
downtown within the Urban Renewal District.
Martin Bergoffen, 1268 Jackson Street, said he was a bicycle rider who
opposes expansion of the Urban Renewal District and construction of parking
garages that will promote the use of fossil fuels and deterioration of the
biosphere.
'.
Martha Rice, 2610 Highland Oaks Drive, supported amending the Urban Renewal
Plan to allow a library to be constructed at the Broadway and Charnel ton site
preferred by the Future of Our Library Committee.
Bob Fenstermacher, 3505 Spring Boulevard, identified himself as a downtown
small-businessman. He supported the proposed Urban Renewal Plan update and
said that tax increment financing will help address the problem of inadequate
parking downtown.
At this point, Council President Bascom called for a ten-minute recess. The
meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m.
Veronica Grabowski, 91662 Coburg Road, said that as owner/operator of a horse
carriage business, she has had an opportunity to discuss Eugene's downtown
area with many customers. She reported that in general, among her customers,
there is support for enhancing the appearance of downtown and she urged
approval of projects that will encourage tourists to return and people to
e relocate in Eugene. Ms. Grabowski supported continuation of urban renewal
and expansion of the district boundaries to include 5th Avenue. She
questioned whether opening streets would benefit downtown merchants.
Pointing out an increase in litter on the mall, Ms. Grabowski asked the
citizens of Eugene to use more care in disposing of their trash.
Greg Bryant, 1087 East 19th Avenue, contended that the updated urban renewal
plan will not stimulate Eugene's economy but will make the city increasingly
dependent on the rest of the world's economy. He advocated discarding the
growth model of economics in favor of self reliance in all goods and services
locally. He urged that economic plans be organized to encourage
interdependence among local businesses.
Mike Johnson, 91662 Coburg Road, said that the fountains, parks, trees, mall,
and 5th Avenue area are the features of downtown that most impress visitors.
He favored expansion of the Urban Renewal District and extension of the plan.
Richard Wright, 1043 Mill Street, quoted Benjamin Franklin to support his
opposition to extension of the Urban Renewal Plan. He recommended reading
Jane Jacobs' The Life and Death of Great American Cities and said that the
proposed Urban Renewal District will support the degrading of diversity in
the community by encouraging more growth of retail and restaurants. He
maintained that housing and manufacturing deserve more attention and
financial support.
- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 8
e Peg Persinger, 2174 Keith Way, spoke on behalf of Creative Kids and Kids'
Edition, two small retail stores on the downtown mall. She urged adoption of
the updated plan and continuation of the City's commitment to making downtown
a viable location for businesses.
Sue Prichard, 2671 Emerald Street, considered a vibrant downtown critical for
the community's success. As a commercial real estate broker specializing in
downtown property, Ms. Prichard said six factors attract clients: 1)
adequate parking; 2) good automobile and pedestrian access; 3) a critical
mass of activity; 4) a downtown core; 5) a predictable and dependable
development process; and 6) a partnership with the City, with building
owners, and with customers. Ms. Prichard urged the council to continue
developing a partnership with downtown and to expand the Urban Renewal
District.
Kevin Hornbuckle, 1359 Patterson Street, said he represented the working
class of the community and urged the council to ask itself the following
questions when considering urban renewal: 1) where is the evidence that
urban renewal benefits the well-being and health of the community outside
downtown businesses? 2) for whom is free enterprise free? 3) what happened to
the people who owned the businesses that no longer exist as a result of urban
renewal? 4) why is the City eager to subsidize capitalism downtown? 5) who
can afford to use the Hult Center? 6) does the City want to encourage the
increased use of cars? 7) why doesn't the City subsidize bus service
downtown? 8) why not implement rent control to provide more spendable money?
9) should tax payers support private enterprise?
e Mike Schwartz, 2390 Lariat Drive, identified himself as owner of M. Jacobs
Furniture and Jacobs Plaza downtown and he urged support of an expanded Urban
Renewal District. Citing the loss of major retailers on the downtown mall,
he supported opening both Willamette and Olive streets to automobile traffic.
Mr. Schwartz said that the factions that consistently oppose other
development projects (e.g., the Riverfront Research Park, the widening of 6th
and 7th avenues, the airport project, and relocation of the library) also
oppose an updated urban renewal plan. He encouraged the council to support a
healthy downtown by supporting the plan update.
Rod Malone, 3445 Breezewood, identified himself as manager of The Bon
department store. He said The Bon is committed to retaining its downtown
location as long as it is economically viable to do so. Because a healthy,
growing downtown that includes office space, parking, new retailers,
accessibility, and improved circulation is in The Bon's best interest, he
asked the council to support the updated plan. Mr. Malone commented that in
his many discussions with City officials about downtown, he has never been
offered a "slippery dealJl as some speakers had insinuated was a common
practice.
Randy Prince, PO Box 927, urged the council to reduce traffic and spend money
on improvements that will benefit all citizens of Eugene. He maintained that
urban renewal increases taxes both within and outside the Urban Renewal
District. Mr. Prince claimed that adequate parking is available and
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 9
e maintained that businesses benefit when parking is located in such a way as
to require more people to walk through the area. He recommended additional
work on the plan update and referral to the voters.
Rob Willis, 827 East 35th Place, encouraged the council to refer the urban
renewal issue to the voters to better meet the council goal for improving the
effectiveness of citizen/council relations.
Sam Frear, 4734 Brookwood Street, requested adjournment of the meeting to
allow further public consideration of the plan. He suggested referring
questions about library location, reopening Willamette and Olive streets, and
extension of the urban renewal plan to the voters.
Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, reviewed the history of urban renewal in
Eugene and concluded that the approach has been deficient. While Mr. Slocum
favored the continuation of the present program, he opposed the expansion of
the district's boundaries or anything that would incur additional expense to
the citizens.
Mary Bentsen, 950 West 16th Avenue, opposed expansion of the urban renewal
plan. She reported that the Neighborhood Leaders Council voted unanimously
to oppose the plan and favored voting on urban renewal plans. She questioned
how west Eugene wetlands or the riverfront could be considered blighted areas
meeting the requirements for the creation of urban renewal districts. Ms.
Bentsen claimed that urban renewal is being viewed by staff and council
e members as a way to circumvent the Budget Committee's public processes for
determining priorities for the expenditure of public money. She said that
enacting the revised plan without a vote of the people would thwart the will
of the public.
Al Urquhart, 1820 Olive Street, supported urban renewal and considered the
1968 plan a success in addressing problems of blight, but opposed extension
of the plan or expansion of the district boundary. Mr. Urquhart said central
Eugene should compete for funds with other city areas through the regular
budgeting process.
Jan Wostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, opposed expansion of the Urban Renewal
District boundary and extension of the current Urban Renewal Plan without
voter approval. He said that tax increment financing sequesters new revenues
and adversely affects the ability of other community entities to raise the
revenues necessary for their continued operation. While he shared the
council's concern for a viable downtown, Mr. Wostmann said it was important
to build consensus for specific development projects when so many needs are
competing for revenues. He urged the council to allow citizens to determine
the community's priorities.
John Baugess, 1576 Walnut Street, said that urban renewal has destroyed many
communities and displaced many residents. He supported the creation of more
democratic processes that will allow more public control of projects that
shape the community.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 10
e Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Boulevard, said the original urban renewal plan
was intended to be implemented on a ten-year basis but is now in its
twenty-first year. She maintained that urban renewal improvement projects
had not produced promised revenue and were in fact causing property taxes
outside the district to increase. She proposed an end to tax increment
financing. Ms. Johnson said the March 1989 election made clear that citizens
oppose locating a new library downtown and she claimed that mothers with
young children would be unable to use a library in a downtown location. Ms.
Johnson urged the council to refer the urban renewal issue to the voters.
Wickes Seal, 494 West 10th Avenue, opposed extension of the Urban Renewal
Plan and said that fewer retailers are doing business in the downtown area
than when urban renewal began 20 years ago with the purpose of improving the
downtown business climate.
Paul Nicholson, 1855 East 28th Avenue, pointed out that only three councilors
had defeated opponents to be elected to council positions. He said that
extension of the urban renewal plan requires public support.
Shirley Martin, 1716 Adkin Street, Number 4, indicated her desire to speak
against the update of the Urban Renewal Plan, but left the meeting before
testifyi ng.
Spencer Whitted, 66 East 6th Avenue, said that not continuing urban renewal
would be a backward step for Eugene.
e John Green, 2961 Powell, said that citizens concur in wanting what is best
for downtown, but disagree about how City money will be spent. He urged the
council to refer the matter to the voters to learn what the public wants done
with its money.
Cheryle Hawkins, 1350 Bailey Avenue, supported retirement of the current
Urban Renewal Plan and development of a community vision that is created and
supported by the entire community. She opposed a northward expansion of the
Urban Renewal District and favored including a new library in any new urban
renewal development. Ms. Hawkins urged the council to postpone any decision
on the Urban Renewal Plan until completion of studies by Lane Transit
District and the City. She supported referring the issue to the voters.
Ann Nelson, 909 West 5th Avenue, questioned whether resources would be
available in 20 years to support continued use of automobiles and said that
there is more to quality of life than parking and shopping. She asked the
council to accept responsibility for planning for the collective future.
Ray Wolfe, 1926 Potter Street, concurred with Mr. Frear's earlier comments
and asked for an explanation of why copies of the Urban Renewal Plan update
had not been more readily available to interested members of the public. He
requested that the Urban Renewal Plan be referred to the voters. Mr. Wolfe
said that carefully designed urban renewal plans can make valuable
contributions to the quality of life in Eugene, but did not consider this
particular plan beneficial. Urban renewal eliminated a significant amount of
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 11
e low-income housing and Mr. Wolfe said this should be addressed in a revised
plan. He regarded as mythical the allegation that urban renewal pays for
itself through property improvements. Calling such a statement a distortion
of the truth, Mr. Wolfe called for disclosure by the City Manager1s Office
of how taxpayers in fact bear a financial burden imposed by urban renewal.
Dick Hansen, 2744 Tomahawk Lane, described the original Urban Renewal Plan as
an effort to retain retail in the downtown area. He said that while downtown
has lost some department stores, Eugene has more speciality stores in its
downtown area than many other communities its size. Mr. Hansen urged the
council to delay its consideration of expansion of the Urban Renewal District
and move forward with extension of the plan within the existing boundaries.
Mr. Hansen described Mr. Gleason's role as being to look for innovative
solutions and the council1s to judge them. He strongly recommended the
opening of Broadway, Olive, and Willamette streets and a specific sunset date
for the plan.
W. Whittington, 795 West 26th Avenue, identified himself as a long-time
Eugene resident and described how assessed valuation and taxation of his
property had increased over the past 45 years. He advocated developing a
"Suburban Renewal" plan to benefit common citizens and suggested that such a
plan might encourage River Road residents to support annexation.
Brad Perkins, 1590 Mill Street, opposed expansion of the Urban Renewal
District boundary as proposed and urged voter referral. He saw no blight in
e the proposed expansion area, so failed to see how it would qualify for urban
renewa 1 . Mr. Perkins said urban renewal has prevented diversity in the
downtown area because it created an access problem. He advocated a return of
private enterprise downtown. Mr. Perkins considered the creation of the
downtown mall a visionary plan of the 1960s that was not successful. He said
that urban renewal and tax increment financing could be used to create
housing, historic preservation, and mixed use as part of the Emerald Canal
project.
David Zupan, 972 West 4th Avenue, questioned the idea of opening the downtown
mall to automobile traffic in light of what he considered overwhelming public
opposition expressed at earlier meetings. Mr. Zupan encouraged the council
to investigate the Boulder, Colorado mall as a model of what can be created
in a downtown area and advised councilors to think clearly as they plan for
the future of Eugene.
There being no further requests to speak, Council President Bascom closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Bennett asked the council to consider the recommendation he made earlier
to separate the issues of the plan's extension and expansion from individual
projects. Ms. Schue concurred with Mr. Bennett's suggestion.
Mr. Holmer agreed that the plan should be addressed first, but he said it
would be impossible to consider the plan without considering whether it
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 12
e should include opening streets, a new library, a transit transfer station,
etc.
Ms. Schue said that a plan should be viewed as a guideline that points out
important issues but does not prescribe specific actions for implementation.
Responding to public testimony, Mr. Farkas said that both San Francisco and
Seattle have urban renewal districts. The City would receive an estimated
$2.4 million for the land at the 8th Avenue and Willamette Street site in
addition to approximately $500,000 annually in tax increment revenue.
Regarding the valuation of downtown property with respect to the consumer
price index, Mr. Farkas said the downtown has not been reassessed on an
income approach since 1982 and will not be reassessed for another four years.
The assessed value downtown reflects a condition during the height of a
recession. The original Urban Renewal Plan did not have an expiration date
but the updated plan is proposed to sunset in 20 years. Mr. Farkas refuted
the claim that urban renewal funds are available only to out-of-town
developers by pointing out that 25 rehabilitation loans have been made to
existing businesses in the downtown renewal district, 39 new buildings have
been developed primarily by local owners, and the City has made in excess of
41 loans to small businesses throughout the city with block grant resources.
The updated plan has been available since 1987 in various forms and Mr.
Farkas apologized for the fact that production problems prevented more copies
from being available sooner.
e
V!. ORDINANCE CONCERNING CITY FUNDS; AMENDING SECTIONS 2.153, 2.403,
2.413, 2.555, 2.560, 2.567, 2.575, 2.580, 2.582, 2.642, 2.644, 2.646,
2.648. 3.794, 3.798, 7.025, 7.060, 7.195, 7.245, AND 7.543 OF THE
EUGENE CODE, 1971: REPEALING SECTIONS 2.529, 2.565, AND 2.570 OF
THAT CODE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
At the request of Mr. Boles, this item was held over to a future council
meeting.
VI!. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PARKS AND RECREATION TRUST FUND
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Mr. Boles referred to Section
3 and requested an amendment that would add the following: II . and in
accordance with the priorities and elements of the memorandum of October 30,
1989.11
Res. No. 4152--A resolution establishing the M. Jacobs Trust
Fund.
- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 13
e Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the
resolution as amended. Roll call vote; the motion carried
unanimously, 7:0.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to November 8, 1989.
~~ ..
'.
Miche.' G'~'SO .
City Manager
(Recorded by Mary Feldman)
mncc 110689-730
e
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 6, 1989 Page 14