Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1982 Meeting '. -~' ~ e e - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Work Session Treehouse Restaurant May 10, 1982 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Gus Keller, Councilors Bill Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, Mark Lindberg, Betty Smith; Micheal Gleason, City Manager; Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager; Carol Baker, Pat Lynch, City Manager's Office; Charlie Kupper, Director, HCC; Mike Tharp, HCC staff; Susan Pack, Eugene Register-Guard; Fred Webb, KUGN. I. DRAFT ORDINANCE CREATING THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION (draft and boundary map submitted) Mr. Kupper said two items to come before the City Council on May 24 will be the formation of the new Downtown Commission and designation of property boundaries. The new boundary results from exchange between representatives of the Eugene Renewal Agency, the Downtown Development Board, and the Eugene Downtown Associa- tion, and the neighborhood interest groups. The boundary will enable the new Downtown Commission to undertake planning and related activities within the larger boundary. It does not establish a new taxation district for the Downtown Development District. Responding to a question, Mr. Kupper replied that consensus was reached by the ERA, DDB, and EDA. Neighborhood boards may not agree. Mr. Lindberg said WUN and JAN neighborhood associations are concerned that those removed from within the association boundaries and included in the new boundary would still have the right to assemble. Mr. Lindberg said groups should be allowed to form if they want to. Both neighborhood associations are willing to give up some turf, since they see value in the new plan. JAN members are sad to see their good neighbors go, especially the library. Ms. Wooten said two assurances given to neighborhood associations were that until a new refinement plan is needed, the existing refinement plans will remain intact and a residence association would be a forum as an option of those within the boundary. A residence association is different from a regular neighborhood' association in that day-to-day concerns about the city would not have to be included, nor would they need to deal with development of downtown Eugene. Mr. Lindberg said he hoped that the downtown would be recognized by outsiders and ins iders as a mixed-use area. The downtown area is a 24-hour operat ion where people live, work, and enjoy recreation. MINUTES--City Council Work Session May 10, 1982 Page 1 e Ms. Wooten said neighborhood associations recognized that issue and are pleased the Downtown Commission is happening. Neighborhood associations had been concerned about the process. The timing has been a problem, as has been the disenfranchisement of people living in the area. When asked if representatives of the three downtown boards and commissions had been in contact with their parent groups, Mr. Kupper replied that two weeks ago he briefed the nine members and they formally voted to approve the draft ordi- nance and the boundaries. Representatives of that committee reported to the Eugene Renewal Agency and that agency moved to approve their work and recommended the ordinance and boundaries be approved by City Council. DDS made the same motion. The Eugene Downtown Association will be hearing the proposal May 12. Mr. Kupper highlighted the draft ordinance creating the Downtown Commission. Mr. Lindberg asked if four, rather than five, members would be a better number to have on the commission membership. Mr. Kupper said that had been discussed and some on the committee of nine said four would be better than five. Mr. Lindberg asked if a rationale for four had been presented. Mr. Kupper replied that those who had favored four had said the entire community should be tapped. Those who had favored five had said the people involved should be those whose interests are in the downtown area. Ms. Smith asked how many of the present members of the DDS and ERA would be eligible for the new Downtown Commission. Mr. Kupper replied that two members don't need to meet qualifications. Nine of the eleven current members of DDS and ERA meet the qualifications. e Mr. Lindberg said a strong Eugene Renewal Agency now exists in terms of exper- tise. Two recent applicants have had banking and development experience, but neither have interests in the downtown area. Ms. Wooten replied that eligibility requirements are flexible enough to incorporate many needs. Owning a business or working downtown qualifies as having an interest in the downtown. Mr. Lindberg said a major interest of DDB is the parking project. The financing of that program is under duress and he asked that it be explained. Mr. Kupper said, regarding the Downtown Development District, City Council has taken no new responsibility that they did not formerly have. The duress of the free parking program results from the decline of revenue. Total revenue in the district has gone down from $1 million annually three years ago to $700,000 this year. Most of the $700,000 is from fees rather than from parking revenues. The program still supports itself. The $1 million budget of a few years ago included money for capital improvement programs. When asked what the relationship between the downtown refinement plan and the proposed urban renewal plan were, Mr. Kupper said he did not know the answer. Ms. Wooten added that the Central Eugene Renewal Agency District can expand two blocks in any direction in terms of tax increment financing. In order to implement changes within the larger planning boundary the doughnut district overlay is needed to create the financing mechanism to do improvement. Logically e MINUTES--City Council Work Session May 10, 1982 Page 2 e e e ~. speaking, the refinement plan has to be in place before the tax increment districts were overlayed, in order to see what money is being raised for. Mr. Kupper said that instinctively, he agreed. Legally, he is not certain. Ms. Wooten said she assumed the refinement plan should be one of the first orders of business by the group. Mr. Lindberg said planning before imple- mentation makes more sense. However, he said there is a group that has worked for one year on developing a plan for the renewal district and they were representative of the whole area. The Planning Department has been cut back so that it may be five years before a renewal doughnut district can be considered. Ms. Wooten said that is not necessarily the case. No one is ready to disregard the group's work. The group's work will expedite basic ground work of any kind of refinement planning process. The work done by the advisory group and work done by Lyle Stewart, coupled with existing refinement plans, are going to lend themselves to a faster planning process. Mr. Lindberg asked whether it costs as much to staff a function as to staff a committee. Ms. Wooten replied that that was not yet known. Mr. Gleason said the Downtown Commission optimizes staff relationships. Mr. Kupper said he anticipates the same level of staffing and hopes more produc- tive use of staff time will result from elimination of the three boards. It might be possible to move the work plan of the commission along faster than it had been possible to move the individual plans of three boards and commissions. Staff will not have to be going back and forth to other boards. Mr. Lindberg said in a case where consolidating of committees results in a consolidation of the organizational charge, which is consolidation of function, he predicts money will be saved. But lopping off a human rights committee lops off a human rights service. Mr. Gleason said both staff function and products of their services are the issue. Formation of the Downtown Commission eliminates a tremendous overlap in operational procedures. Consolidation does reduce the support staff and admin- istrative staff time and attorney fees. Ms. Wooten said that the process had been difficult, but she is pleased staff has taken seriously the City Council goal and request of consolidation and the streamlining approach to boards and commissions. When asked how the commission would affect the permit process, Mr. Gleason said that the Parks and Recreation Department would not maintain jurisdiction and that everything will be transferred to the staff and board of the new commission. Staff needs to determine who will support parking. In response to a question, Mr. Kupper said funding for those functions will not be trimmed out of the City's budget. Mr. Kupper said Mr. Gleason had described all there was to say. The new commission can take the contract and run it in its existing form, or run it in its existing form at a lower funding level, or buy entirely different services. MINUTES--City Council Work Session May 10, 1982 Page 3 . ' e e e -C.' When asked how disagreement that was formerly handled by the ERA would now be processed, Mr. Kupper said an appeal would first be made to the Downtown Commis- sion. A response would go from the commission to the appellant and if it was not resolved, it would then proceed to City Council. The exception would be zone changes. The new commission does not supersede the Planning Commission in its planning function. Mr. Gleason said all Planning Department refinement plans have a citizen advisory element. Responding to a question on authority of the commission to set up subcommittees, Mr. Kupper said the ordinance does not mention having the power to set up subcommittees. However, it does not prohibit setting up subcommittees. Mr. Tharp said that the ordinance does not prohibit setting up of subcommittees to deal with specific issues. Mr. Gleason said if a commission forms a major study committee, it becomes a public body and therefore ~ust first be approved by City Council. Any advisory group to City Council has statutory and policy requirements. Mr. Gleason thanked Ms. Wooten and Mr. Lindberg for their work in forming the new commission. Ms. Wooten said she recognized the work and deliberation of City Council and the Economic Development Committee. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Lindberg, Ms. Wooten, and Mr. Obie. He said the document may not be perfect, but that it is a giant stride in the right direction. II. GENERAL DISCUSSION When asked about sewers, Mr. Gleason replied that plan B is under consideration. The liquid process will be complete and something will have to be done about the solid process. In responding to a question, Ms. Smith said the last decision on sludge sites was to pursue other options which could be interim, on-site, and exploration of other sites, including Four Corners. Ms. Wooten asked if the lack of supplemental funding from the Federal government has had an effect on potential rates or the ability to complete the project in a timely way. Ms. Smith replied that those decisions or recommendations had not been made. The ongoing program is based on money requested from the State. Costs will be close to the original figure. Mr. Gleason said if the Federal government does not appropriate $2.7 billion for the program nationally, a critical decision will have to be made whether to finish the liquid process with local bonds. Responding to a question on when would be a good opportunity to individually or collectively discuss EWEB issues, Mr. Keller suggested that Ms. Wooten call the City Manager to arrange a time. Ms. Wooten said she was impressed by the turnout of 850 people on the Historic East Skinner Butte walking tour. She said the Historic Review Board should be thanked at the Wednesday council meeting for their part in the activity. Mr. Gleason said that on Wednesday, the Eugene Arts Foundation should be recognized also for having made a commitment of $327,000 for next year's EPAC operating account. Ms. Smith said Mr. Benson and the entire board of trustees should be thanked. MINUTES--City Council Work Session May 10, 1982 Page 4 .4 e e - -:7':.' Ms. Wooten asked that the Mayor send a letter for the City Council to the Eugene City Swim Club thanking them for participating in the budget hearing process. Mr. Lindberg asked if the beginning cash balance for next year was dangerously low. Ms. Wooten responded that was not yet known. The City Manager indicated that he will offer his comments and alternatives in conjunction with the begin- ning cash balance discussion at upcoming Budget Committee meetings. Ms. Wooten said she was taken aback by the amusement device ordinance. Mr. Gleason explained that the final copy of the modified ordinance had been sent to the amusement device owners and operators and no feedback was received. The proposed ordinance requires the management to be able to fully view and super- vise patron activities in establishments that house more than ten amusement devices. Management is responsible for the behavior of their patrons. The term II amusement dev ice" is broader than just v ideo games and covers v ideo peep shows. The ordinance requires certain levels of lighting and requires that entertain- ment devices be viewable by management. Responding to a question on why the ordinance is necessary, Mr. Gleason said that it is more difficult to regulate problem areas after they have been allowed to develop than it is to prevent problems from developing in the first place. The work session was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. ~"~~ -' ,~4:Y' ..r.--t. .c;..~ :~ 1,/.. .. ~. r/~i--.IIf1' / Lois Enman, Minutes Recorder - LE:ce/CM23b13 MINUTES--City Council Work Session May 10, 1982 Page 5