Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/1989 Meeting --- . '< e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall November 8, 1989 11 : 30 a. m . COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Rob Bennett, Roger Rutan, Shawn Boles, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Bobby Green. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Debra Ehrman, Mayor Miller. The adjourned meeting of November 6, 1989, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Council President, Ruth Bascom. 1. ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER A. Mass Transit Ms. Schue directed the council's attention to an article recently published in a magazine entitled Governing concerning mass transit. She encouraged e council members to read the article because it relates directly to council business. B. Committee Assignment Duties Mr. Rutan suggested that in order to become more familiar with the activities of the Southern Willamette Private Industry Council, each City Council member should be responsible for attending one meeting throughout the month of December. C. Airport Runway Extension Mr. Rutan noted that in a recent trip to Washington D.C. he had the opportunity to meet with several members of Senator Bob Packwood's staff. He added that they have started making application for Federal funds concerning an extension of the airport runway. The completed masterplan documenting the need for a 3,OOO-foot runway extension will be brought before the council at a later date. D. Chairpersons for the Active Bethel Citizens Mr. Green indicated that the Active Bethel Citizen group has secured chairpersons for their neighborhood organization. Hunt Axline and Ronnie Scofield have been nominated to this post. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 1 . e E. Budget Layperson Mr. Green noted that he is in the process of recruiting a budget layperson for his ward. More information regarding this will be given at the next council work session. F. Cedar Rapids Mass Transit Plan Ms. Bascom informed the council that she received information about the mass transit station plan of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She noted that this information will be presented to Mr. Boles for his evaluation as to whether this information is relevant to council discussion. G. Metro Partnership Ms. Bascom indicated that she received a call from Bob Fenstermacher, President of the Metro Partnership, who requested that a member of the council be appointed to the Partnership Review Committee. She noted that Mr. Boles has tentatively agreed to fill this position, and Mr. Holmer has agreed to serve as an alternate. H. Funding for Cultural Services Mr. Gleason asked the council if they wanted to discuss funding for cultural services at the Quarterly Process Session or whether he should set up a e separate work session. Ms. Bascom said that she felt this item should be brought before the council for discussion prior to the February 26 Quarterly Process Session. In light of this, Mr. Gleason indicated that funding for cultural services would be discussed in a work session prior to the Quarterly Process Session. II. LANE COUNTY TASK FORCE ON HOMELESSNESS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING John VanLandingham, Planning Commissioner, briefed the council on the project concerning the lane County Task Force on Homelessness and Affordable Housing. This task force was established in March 1986 by the Lane County Commissioners. Composed of 24 members representing a broad base, including the public and private sector, providers, recipients, businesses, and the religious community, its charge was to identify problems and recommend an action plan of solutions. The City of Eugene was represented by two members of the Council Social Goals Committee: Councilor Rob Bennett and Planning Commissioner John Van Landingham. Mr. Vanlandingham and former City Councilor Cynthia Wooten were selected as co-chairs of the task force. The final report includes a variety of recommendations which address emergency, transitional, and permanent housing. The report also recommends a funding mechanism which draws on six sources to provide a base of support for e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 2 . e a Housing Trust Fund. In addition, a three-year serial levy (17.2 cents per thousand) would fund capital projects and programs in the short run. Mr. VanLandingham noted that this is a long-range plan designed to impact a long-term problem. He added that the primary focus of this project is to provide new, affordable housing for low-income families. Mr. Vanlandingham emphasized the importance of keeping this proposal intact as a package. Mr. Vanlandingham noted that the task force currently has a completed final report. He added that in response to concerns expressed at the public hearing, the Business license Tax revenue has been decreased by 25 percent. Mr. Bennett encouraged the council to consider the recommendation of this project seriously. He indicated that the need for this proposal has been clearly established, and is supported by the community. This financial package as presented is spread evenly over the community, and is reflective of the community perception of need. Mr. Bennett reiterated Mr. Van landingham's concern to view this proposal as a package and keep it intact. Mr. Boles commented that this task force has addressed the problem of homelessness in a rational fashion and voiced his support for this proposal. He added that in order for this program to be successful over the long run, it needs the support of the State and Federal governments. Mr. Rutan supported this position. Mr. Holmer expressed concern that this plan does not make funds available for e emergency winter shelter, and asked whether the state has taken any further action in support of such emergency shelter. In response, Mr. Gleason said that some interest has been expressed at the State level. Mr. Gleason expressed concern that emergency shelter competes with permanent shelter for limited revenue resources. Mr. Green added his support to this proposal, but expressed concern that most of the additional shelter for low-income families is oriented toward rental housing. He indicated that it is through property acquisition that low-income families can participate in mainstream society, and hoped that part of this plan might include some form of assistance for property purchase. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to endorse the conclusions and recommendations of the lane County Task Force on Homelessness and Affordable Housing, and to encourage the City representation on the task force to communicate this support to the Lane County Commissioners. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The council members gave general consent to Ms. Bascom's request to exclude any discussion of Urban Renewal District expansion or any discussion concerning specific projects in Resolution 940 at the present time. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 3 . e Councilor Bascom recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened the meeting of the Eugene Renewal Agency. III. RESOLUTION CONCERNING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN Bob Hibschman, City staff, briefly reported on Resolution 940 amending the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project. Responding to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Sercombe said that by passing Resolution 940, the council, as an Urban Renewal Agency, is legally required to adopt the Urban Renewal Plan but only required to accept the accompanying report. Mr. Sercombe noted that the report would not be subject to the same sort of amendment process as the plan. He added that the report is used as background information for the plan and can offer clarification for ambiguities in the plan. Referring to Section 1 of Resolution 940, Mr. Holmer said that State law requires the Urban Renewal Plan to be accompanied by a report, and that report adoption must be concurrent with plan adoption. In his interpretation, this means that the report is subject to the same legal process as the plan. Referring to Page 1 of the Ordinance, Mr. Holmer said that State law required the Urban Renewal Plan to be submitted to the Planning Commission before its adoption by the council. He noted that insufficient evidence has been shown e which demonstrates that this plan has been under Planning Commission review. Mr. Sercombe responded that this plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1986. In his opinion, this is adequate to meet the legal requirements. He added that the council is not required to consider the exact plan to which the Planning Commission made its recommendations. Mr. Boles inquired about the degree of plan change that would be necessary to require further Planning Commission review. Mr. Sercombe said that if the plan deals with the same general subject area, it would not need further review. Mr. Holmer noted that changes in the Urban Renewal boundary have been made since the first commission review, and asked if this did not signify sufficient change. Mr. Sercombe said these boundary changes are not significant enough to necessitate further commission review. Mr. Holmer moved that the plan be returned to the Urban Renewal Agency with the request that the updated plan be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. The motion died for lack of a second. Referring to Appendix G of the Urban Renewal Plan Report, Mr. Holmer expressed concern about the ultimate fiscal feasibility of the program. He felt that assumptions for the tax collection rate, which is estimated at 89 percent, should be estimated at 100 percent. Abe Farkas, Planning and Development Department Director, responded that the 89-percent figure is a reflection of actual, situational fluctuations of the tax collection rate. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 4 . e Mr. Holmer also noted that the tax rate growth, which is estimated at 3.5 percent, should be estimated at 0 percent. Mr. Farkas noted that estimation at 3.5 percent was an attempt at reflecting a long-term average but with a limit over time based on assessed valuation. The council offered its general consent to change the estimated tax collection rate to 100 percent and to change the estimated tax rate growth to reflect a 0 percent rate of growth. Staff indicated that these adjustments in assumptions would counteract each other and not be that significant of a change. Referring to Section 600 of the Urban Renewal Report, which begins with the statement "in order to achieve the objectives of the activities of the plan, the following activities will be undertaken on behalf of the City of Eugene," Mr. Holmer suggested that the word "will" should be changed to "may." The council agreed to make this change. Also referring to Section 600, Mr. Holmer felt that the word "libraries" in A. 2. b., and the phrase "mass transit stations" in A. 2. g. should be deleted in order to be grammatically consistent. The council did not appear to support this change. Referring to Section 1300 A., Mr. Holmer suggested that the council be given the authority to direct closure of the Urban Renewal Plan at anytime by adding the language "unless terminated in accord with ORS 457.075." e Mr. Rutan said that the council's authority to terminate projects is implicit in the plan, and was not interested in pursuing this issue. Mr. Bennett supported Mr. Rutan's position. Mr. Boles indicated that information from the public hearing reflected a reluctance on the part of the community to extend the plan to 20 years. He said that the number of potential projects outlined for the next 20 years is too large and the time period is too long. Ms. Schue inquired about the effect that shortening the plan would have on bonding capacity. Mr. Farkas responded that shortening the plan would have no impact on bonding capacity. Mr. Gleason added that it is possible to implement a mandated review process for projects laid out in the plan, at which time the agency would have the ability to exact completion and closure of projects. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Hibschman said that in approximately year 15 under the model, the Urban Renewal Agency would be at a point to be financially solvent. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue to require a mandatory review of the Urban Renewal Plan at 10 years andt if the plan is still operating, a mandatory review at 15 years. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 5 . . e Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to amend Mr. Bennett's motion to indicate that the mandatory Urban Renewal Plan review will include: review of the agency debt situation on all project decisions, review of project initiation, and enactment of a decision on the option of defeasance. Mr. Sercombe suggested that the wording of Section 1300 A. be changed to reflect that the council shall consider termination of the Urban Renewal District during the 10th and 15th years after the adoption of the plan update which shall include a public hearing and review of financing on existing projects. Mr. Boles withdrew his motion. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Res. No. 940--A resolution amending the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried, 6:1, with Mr. Holmer voting opposed. Councilor Bascom adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and e reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. IV. ORDINANCE AMENDING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CB 4176--An ordinance approving an amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project 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. Mr. Holmer moved that the ordinance be given no further consideration at this time but that it be brought back to the council at its next meeting with an amendment to have the ordinance be effective after approval by the voters at a special election and that a resolution calling such an election be prepared for council consideration at the same meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. Roll call vote; the motion for a second reading carried unanimously, 7:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 6 .. " e Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Holmer who voted nay, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19648) . Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, that the council direct the City Manager to refrain from leasing for the City any office space now occupied by any person or corporation that enters into a lease agreement with Willamette Street Partners, a limited California partnership, unless the City leases are awarded to the low bids in response to public requests for proposals or the council has specifically authorized such lease negotiations in a public meeting. Ms. Schue asked for Mr. Sercombe's opinion as to whether the issue raised by Mr. Holmer is appropriate for council discussion. Mr Sercombe said that the council has the authority to set policy for leasing practices and, therefore, this issue is within the province of the council. Mr. Holmer said that the council does not have sufficient, detailed information regarding the Central Eugene Project to justify a $94 million expenditure. Mr. Rutan agreed with Mr. Holmer that more information must be received regarding this project before the council takes any formal action. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to table this motion. e The motion passed, 6:1, with Councilor Holmer voting opposed. Mr. Rutan said that urban renewal is a valuable financing tool, and it is appropriate for both the City Council and the Urban Renewal Agency to be a part of the development process of downtown Eugene. Mr. Rutan stressed that it is important not to delay this issue indefinitely. Ms. Schue said that the Monday night public hearing was successful, but felt that the council should have had the opportunity to respond to public comment. It is her perception that downtown areas that have been successful in the past have always had assistance from the local government; urban renewal is the only way to provide such public assistance in Oregon. In response to a question from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Schue said that she has not made any decisions regarding expansion of the renewal district, but is willing to consider this as a possibility. Referring to public testimony at the October 6 hearing regarding council/ staff relations, Mr. Bennett said that the council has set policy which the staff is acting on and reneged any notion that staff is making deals without council knowledge or consent. Mr. Rutan demonstrated his full support of Mr. Bennett's statement. Mr. Green said that he is in support of Urban Renewal for the vehicle for which it is being used. He noted that his impression of public hearing e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 7 ---- . e testimony was that the public did not support specific projects being undertaken through the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Boles indicated that he supports an update to the Central Eugene Plan, in part, to repair mistakes made during the initial 20-year program. The Central Eugene Project plan provides an opportunity for public assistance of the private sector by providing a public anchor library and a transit station. Mr. Holmer said that he believes in Urban Renewal as a useful tool for investment in the downtown, but feels that this particular plan is not well conceived. Ms. Bascom indicated that public testimony showed an interest in voting on significant Urban Renewal projects or significant downtown development, and she is willing to consider the possibility of voter approval for this. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. ',. Min e City Manager e (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 110889 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 8