Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1983 Meeting MINUTES - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber May 9, 1983 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, Dick Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Cynthia Wooten. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. HULT CENTER BUDGET e Mayor Keller commended the City Council members for their work with the Budget Committee toward balancing the City's budget. He expressed special thanks to the members of the Budget Subcommittee which was deve1 opi ng recommendations for dealing with the budget shortfall of the Hu1t Center for the Perfonning Arts. He fe1 t that the suggestion of an interfund loan to the center for thi s fi sca1 year was appropriate and would give the City time to address the broader issues of 10ng-tenn fi nanci a1 sol utions for the center, support of local arts groups, and destination point activities. He urged that thi s process be open and encourage public involvement and, with this in mind, proposed that the Perfonning Arts Commission be asked to spearhead the effort at examining the center's fiscal situation and needs, involving the public in this effort and reporting back to the council with recommendations in 60 to 90 days. Mayor Keller said that the council wou1 d then make the final decision on the center budget. He asked the council for pennission to work with the Perfonning Arts Commission on thi smatter. Councilor Smith asked if the Perfonning Arts Commission would be asked to review present center expenditures for possible future cuts. City Manager Michea1 G1 eason responded that thi s woul d be done as a part of an outside consul tantl s audit of the center's finances. He said that the Budget Subcommittee would examine the line item details of the center budget and make a recommendation to the Budget Committee. He noted that $200,000 had already been eliminated in thi s manner from the budget originally proposed by the Perfonning Arts Commi ssion. Mr. G1 eason did not bel ieve that the audit of the center wou1 d be finished in time to suggest solutions for the FY83-84 budget but rather for 10ng-tenn budget consi derations. Councilor Obie said that he was very uncomfortable with the Mayor's proposal. He felt that any search for new resources for the center would lead to a new tax package, and he did not feel that introducing new taxes was appropriate at this time. He urged the council to solve the problems of the Hu1 t Center for the present by using moneys from the General Fund. He said that the Financial e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 1 Planning Committee should be the group asked to examine and make recommendations on new revenues and resources. He raised the question of the impact of the 30-percent State property tax refund on a decision to fund the Hult Center out of the General Fund as opposed to funding through another new tax. Councilor Schue expressed appreciation for the work that the Mayor and councilors had done to date in developing recommendations regarding the Hu1t Center deficit. She felt that any proposed solution would need the support of council to be implemented. Ms. Schue stated that the council itself needed to discuss the center's financial picture and agree on the general parameters for a solution before asking some other group to work on the problem. Mayor Keller said that the council frequently asks commissions to review issues and make recommendations to the council, which then holds a public hearing and makes a final decision. He felt that since the Performing Arts Commission was closest to the issues involved, it was in the best position to develop a recom- mendation to the council. . Mr. Gleason noted that Councilor Obie had suggested that revenues now available from those items already cut from the budget, be used to cover the center's operating deficit, but Mr. Gleason pointed out that these funds were Federal Revenue Sharing funds, not from the General Fund. Councilor Hansen said that he shared Mr. Obie's opinion regarding use of revenue- sharing funds as a stop-gap for the Hult Center. He agreed with Ms. Schue that the council should reach consensus on the broad issues surrounding the center's budget before asking another group, such as the Performing Arts Commission, to come up with proposed solutions. Councilor Smith concurred that the council needed to discuss this before referring the matter to the commission. ~ Councilor Holmer said that Mayor Keller was asking the Performing Arts Commission to explore all the options in a public way and that the council should have confidence in the commission's ability to judge the feelings of the council and to weigh public opinion carefully. He felt that the commission had been appointed to carryon just such tasks as this. Councilor Lindberg did not feel there was consensus regarding the proposed use of revenue-sharing funds. He felt that the Performing Arts Commission would be able to generate new ideas and would recognize that there was concern on the council both with the use of revenue-sharing funds and with the introduction of new taxes. Councilor Ball said that he was happy to have the assistance of the Performing Arts Commission and felt they would show vigor and enthusiasm in the search for solutions to the center's budget problems. Councilor Obie suggested that the issue be set aside until the Budget Committee and City Council have completed their work on the budget for this year and the degree of the Hu1t Center budget problem is known. He said it appeared property taxes in the area would increase 12 percent. He felt that it was inappropriate to add new taxes on top of this increase. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 2 e e e Responding to a question from Councilor Hansen, Mayor Keller said that he had discussed his proposal with the Chairperson of the Performing Arts Commission, who felt that the group would be most willing to take on this task. After further debate, councilors agreed to discuss the Hu1t Center budget problem at a Wednesday council meeting following completion of the work of the Budget Committee on May 19. It was agreed that, based on this discussion, the council would develop policy recommendations on the matter. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (memo, resolution, background informa- tion distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Ernie Drapela, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Drape1a said that the plan under which the Parks Department was currently operating had been in place for the past 30 years. He said that work on the Master Plan being considered by the council tonight had begun in 1981 and was funded at a total of $65,000. He noted that if this plan served the City for 20 years, it would have cost $3,250 per year. Mr. Drape1a referred to the memorandum of March 8, 1983, which had been distributed to councilors and which gave a chronology of the plan development process since March 1981. He said that the following data sources had been used in compiling the plan: 1) tra- ditional and historic patterns; 2) phone and personal surveys of expressed desires, including 562 phone surveys with citizens, over 50 face-to-face inter- views with service providers, seven community-wide meetings, presentations to 14 of the City's 20 neighborhood groups, and written and spoken testimony received; 3) current practices in other communities; and 4) professional expertise regard- ing state-of-the-art parks and recreation systems. Mr. Drapela said that the resulting plan represented the best collective thinking of the entire community. He noted that the Joint Parks Committee would review the plan annually. Mr. Drapela said that although there was currently little funding to implement much of the plan, the plan would be ready to serve the City when funding becomes available. He noted that two copies of the resolution had been distributed and recommended that the amended resolution, which deleted the original Section 7 . regarding plan amendment procedures, be adopted. Mr. Drapela said that the deletion was recommended since Policy 8, Chapter 4, of the Metropolitan Area General Plan made inclusion of the material in the original Section 7 unnecessary. Mr. Drapela introduced John Etter, Superintendent of Parks Planning and Design, to discuss the technical aspects of the plan. Mr. Etter said that the Joint Parks Committee had worked with community representatives to address the follow- ing areas/sources of specific concern: Audubon Society, West Butte area, Jefferson Pool, senior citizen needs, Golden Gardens, Downtown Commission recommendations, School District 4-J concerns, and concerns with emphasis on acquisition versus development of parkland. Mr. Etter used a series of overlays to show the acquistions and developments of parkland called for in the Master Plan. He thanked the Planning Department staff and the consulting firm of EDAW for their work on the plan. He noted that there was an error in the published plan and that the correct figure in Section 5.8 was 330 acres of land of City- wide significance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Etter introduced Roger Rutan, Chairperson of the Joint Parks Committee. Mr. Rutan said he spoke as the committee chairperson, as a member of the Planning Commission, and as an active parks user. He discussed the dramatic changes in lifestyle that can occur over the life of a long-range plan, such as the Parks ~ Master Plan, and said that this plan has the flexibility to deal with that change. He noted that the private-public partnership was appropriate for parks management, as demonstrated by the successful private operation of the Laurelwood Golf Course. Mr. Rutan noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed the plan and recommended its adoption to the council. He commended EDAW and City staff for developing a plan which represented a good community consensus. Councilor Holmer asked the total dollar investment represented in the plan. He said he had informally totalled this at over $50 million. He also asked if staff had developed estimated cost figures for operating and maintaining the proposed additions to the City's parks system. Mr. Etter responded that he had total 1 ed the overall investment cost at $32 mi 11 i on wi th the lIeconomy" versi on of the plan and $46.7 million with the "optimum" version. He did not have figures on the maintenance impact of the proposed development. Councilor Schue thanked those who had worked on the plan and said she was pleased with the high level of community response. She urged the council to approve the plan. Responding to Mr. Holmer's concerns, Ms. Schue said that this was a general plan and guide for year-to-year funding decisions. Public hearing was opened. Gywnne Schultz, 2639 Quince, represented the Lane County Audubon Society. She said the group felt the plan was an excellent document. She referred to page 35 of the plan and said the Audubon Society was concerned with the future of the heron rookery at the confluence of the McKenzie and Willamette rivers and with ~ the designation of the area as a both a recreational opportunity area and a site for gravel extraction. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3774--A resolution adopting the Eugene, Oregon, Parks and Recreation Master Plan; effecting a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; and repealing any resolutions in conflict herewith. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Councilor Obie noted that the Metropolitan Area General Plan designates the area described by Ms. Schultz for gravel extraction. He questioned the need to change this. Mr. Gleason said that staff would address this concern. Mr. Obie thanked the Joint Parks Committee for its work, which he felt would help the council with future decision-making. Councilor Holmer asked the meaning of the term "Potential actions" in Section 3 of the plan. Mr. Etter referred to page 8 of the 12/8/82 memo to the Planning Commission with substantive changes and noted the suggested substitution of the word "proposals" for "Potential actions". MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 4 e e e e Councilor Lindberg noted that the plan referred to use of density transfers for acquisition of land and development of facilities. He asked if specific sites were identified where this could be used and what the mechanism was for providing density transfers. Mr. Etter responded that no specific areas were proposed at this time. He noted that density transfers had been used in the past, for example in the Nature Conservancy's acquisition of land in the Willow Creek area. Mr. Gleason said that the transfers were accomplished through the Zoning Code. Mr. Lindberg asked staff to provide him with a copy of the relevant portion of the code. Councilor Lindberg asked what provisions the plan made for Gillespie Butte. Mr. Etter responded that the issue had been discussed at the Joint Parks Committee's May 1982 hearing and that the committee had felt that Gillespie Butte should be acquired but only at a price of from $150,000 to $200,000, not at the then-current asking price. Councilor Hansen asked if the resolution before the council deleted the previous Section 7. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that this was the case and that the new Section 7 (formerly Section 8) called for the Parks Master Plan to take precedence over other refinement plans or special area studies, such as the Willow Creek Plan, if conflicts were found. Mr. Sercombe and Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, said that the Metropolitan Area General Plan would prevail over the Parks Master Plan if conflicts were found. Mr. Chenkin said staff did not know of any conflicts with existing plans but that the wording in the replacement Section 7 was standard language included in such documents in case conflicts were found. He noted that the density transfer Mr. Lindberg had asked about was usually accomplished through the planned unit development process. Regarding the testimony of Ms. Schultz, Mr. Chenkin said staff believed that performance standards could be developed for gravel extraction that would allow protection of the heron rookery at the confluence of the McKenzie and Willamette rivers. Councilor Ball thanked those involved in development of the plan, especially on behalf of the residents of the Danebo area. He said he felt this was the beginning of a good-faith effort to provide that area with parks services. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. FY83-84 Community Development Block Grant Application (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Greg Byrne, Eugene Development Department. Mr. Byrne said that the proposed FY83-84 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applica- tion called for acceleration of the Jefferson/Far West Neighborhood Improvement Program from a two-year to a one-year program, with all funds allocated for bricks-and-mortar projects, not for services. He said that the proposed applica- tion also allocated funds from the Economic Development Opportunity Fund for restoration of the Alpha Tau Omega (ATO) House. Mr. Byrne noted that approval of this proposed application did not commit the council to provide funds to the ATO House restoration if the project proves not to be feasible. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 5 Councilor Holmer asked how feasibility of the ATO project was defined. Mr. Byrne responded that the proposed financing for the restoration was extremely ~ comp1 icated and invol ved a combination of CDBG funds, hi storic restoration loan .. funds, and a commercial redevelopment loan, and was contingent on the building's being accepted into the National Register of Historic Places. He noted that if any of these components failed, the project could be in jeopardy. Councilor Holmer asked if this was the council's final chance for action on the project if all the financing does go smoothly. Mr. Gleason responded that the council would hold a hearing on the ATO house. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that the Hi storic Review Board was considering an appl ication for demol ition of the ATO House and, under City Code regarding such considerations, was bound to examine feasible alternatives to demolition. Mr. Sercombe said that if the Review Board denies the demolition permit request, the matter would come before the council in early June. The council cou1 d then decide whether to allow the demo1 ition or se1 ect some other a1 ternative. Mr. Sercombe said that the council's action tonight would not prejudice the decision on the merits of demolition of the buil ding. Councilor Obie asked why the ATO request had been recommended for funding through the Economic Development Opportunity Fund rather than the historic preservation and rehabilitation funds. Mr. Byrne responded that the Community Development Committee (CDC) had made the recommendation. Councilor Lindberg said that the COG had wanted to force the council's hand by asking that the ATO request be treated as an exceptional case and had felt that $55,000 could be taken out of the Economic Development Opportun ity Fund wi th the understanding that thi s cou1 d be consi dered a loan to the proj ect and that funds woul d be returned for economic development. He said that the CDC had fel t the council could decide whether the investment was worth the risk. 4It Publ ic hearing was opened. Rob Bennett, 250 Pa100lino Drive, sought support from the council for a preserva- tion project his company was interested in being involved in. He said his firm had been approached by a broker representing the owner of the ATO House. Mr. Bennett noted his firm was interested in restoring the building but did not feel thi s cou1 d be done through conventional financing. He had fe1 t that the project would need additional community financial support and had worked closely with City staff to see how such support could be achieved. Mr. Bennett said that he was interested in thi s development opportunity for hi s fi rm, which hoped to move its offices downtown; that he wel corned the opportunity to support hi storic preservation; and that he bel ieved the project coul d be an economic success and an asset for the downtown. He estimated the total development cost at $418,000, with $210,000 in private funds, $125,000 in below-market interest rate loans, and $83,000 in equity. Carmi Wein~rod, 2654 Harris Street, represented the Historic Review Board and testified ln favor of the rehabilitation loan program. She urged the City Council to continue the program which assists owners of historic properties. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 6 e e e Jim Clay, 2465 Kincaid Street, said he was the owner of Plain and Fancy Woodworking, 1002 West 2nd Avenue. He di scussed the small business assi stance portion of the CDBG economic development progrilll. He said that whil e he favored the goal s of the program, he was opposed to the negative effects of the administration of the program to date. He noted that in April 1982 the council had set aside $250,000 to fund investment in small businesses. He said that requests for proposal shad brought in proposal s from over 40 organizations in the community. He bel ieved hi s group' s proposal was the only one that had been given final funding approval. Mr. C1 ay di stributed written materi a1 s documenting the hi story of hi s proposal, including a letter of confirmation authorizing him to proceed with his project, an eva1ution of the proposals submitted, a letter to former EDD/HCC head Robert Thomas asking that funding be made quickly to allow the roof of the buil ding for which funding was allocated to be repaired before the rainy season, and a letter tell ing him that work perfonned before II fi nal compl etionll of the allocation process was ineligible for CDBG remibursement. He said that the repairs to the building still had not been made and that as a result he had lost his credibility with the landlord, over $1,000 in damage had occurred in the building due to the leaking roof, the building had become a fire and injury hazard, and the existence of the eight organizations in the building had been jeopardized. Mr. C1 ay said that the Six-Point Economic Diversi fication Pl an adopted in 1981 had cited the importance of small business to the economy of Eugene and the need to provide venture capi tal for such busi ness. He urged the council not to abandon its dedication to economic diversi fication as soon as the economy began to improve. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Byrne acknowledged that Mr. Clay's situation was very frustrating both for Mr. Clay and for staff. He said that disbursement of the CDBG economic develo\1llent funds had been subj ect to serious changes in the Federal regul ations regarding CDSG funds. He said that new regulations still had not been adopted and that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had advised the City not to loan funds for the economic development program since HUD would likely ask that the funds be returned. Mr. Byrne said that EDD had received word today that HUD would withhold an additional $32,600 from the FY83-84 allocation to clear the previous audit. Mr. Byrne asked that the council's motion on the application include language authorizing the City Manager to submit the grant application and take other steps, as required, to bring the application into conformance with HUD regulations and guidelines. Mr. Gleason added that staff fel t the council shou1 d not ho1 d hearings on speci fic proposal s for use of the CDBG funds until regul ations are received from HUD. Councilor Lindberg said he shared Mr. Clay's disappointment and frustration and hoped the City could help Mr. Clay remedy his business position. He felt that the fau1 t 1 ay wi th HUD, not wi th the City sta ff . He reg retted the vi 01 at ion 0 f pub1 ic trust and the inaction on what cou1 d have been and still coul d be a valuable economic development tool. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 7 Councilor Obie said that he was disappointed by the CDC's allocation of funds to ATO House from the Economic Development Opportunity Fund when he fel t that .. rehabilitation funds should have been used. He felt it was improper for the ~ council to decide the ATO House issue on the basis of what fund restoration moneys would come from rather than on the basis of the merits of saving the buil ding. He said that he coul d not support thi s CDC recommendation. Councilor Lindberg said that the CDC had felt the ATO restoration funds should be deducted from funds originally allocated to the Economic Development Oppor- tunity Fund. Councilor Schue asked staff why this decision had been made. Mr. Byrne said he could not speak for the CDC but that the group had felt this was an exceptional case. Mayor Keller asked if the CDC had felt that the bui1 ding's hi storic status made it an exceptional case. Mr. Byrne and Mr. Lindberg responded that the CDC had felt the imminent threat of demolition had made this a special case. Council or Smith asked if approving the CDBG appl ication waul d lock the council into providing funding for ATO House. Councilor Lindberg said that the council's action would merely give the council the opportunity to provide funding for the buil ding. Councilor Hansen said he felt that any funds allocated to the ATO House should come from the rehabilitation loan program, not from the Opportunity Fund. Mr. Lindberg said that the CDC had not allocated the funds from the Opportunity Fund because the group bel ieved that rehabil itation loans shoul d be used for housi ng and that funds for restorati on for commerc i al use shou1 d come from economic development funds. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the proposed Commun ity Development Block Grant Statement of Obj ectives and Use of Funds for FY83-84 and to authori ze the Ci ty Manager to submi t the grant app1 ication and take other steps as may be requir.ed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to amend the motion to util ize funds from the Rehabil itation Loan Program for restoration of the A1 pha Tau Omega House in 1 ieu of the Economic Development Opportunity Fund. Councilor Holmer asked if this would deprive the council of the opportunity to question the entire matter of the $55,000 expenditure for ATO House. Mr. Sercombe responded that the amendment was made in the same spirit as the original proposal and that the council could therefore decide the ATO matter at a future date. Mr. Obie agreed that this the intent of his amendment. Speaking in favor of the amendment, Councilor Obie said that the council needed to send a si gna1 to the CDC that it is serious about economic development and does not want to see economic development funds deteriorated. He shared the committee's concern with the slowness in dispensing these funds but did not feel this was a reason to alter use of the funds. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 8 e e e Councilor Hansen asked whether if the amendment were passed and the council revi ewed the ATO matter and decided not to all ocate the funds, those funds waul d be lost. Mr. Byrne responded that the funds could be used for other rehabilita- tion by amending the grant and sending that amendment to HUD. He did not feel the funds would be jeopardized. Councilor Schue asked what the current demands were for rehabilitation funds. Mr. Byrne said that there was considerable demand for the funds. He noted that the progrilTl was in a state of transition, due to the current difficulty in leveraging funds, from a leveraged progr1lTl to a direct loan progrilTl, which would easily use all the funds allocated for rehabilitation. Councilor Lindberg said that the City would receive $700,000 in CDBG funds for the purpose of job creation, which he fel t coul d be used to rep1 ace the Economic Development Opportunity funds. A vote was taken on the motion to iITlend. Roll call vote; motion carried 4:3, with Councilors Hansen, Holmer, Obie, and Smith voting in favor, and Councilors Ball, Lindberg, and Schue voting in opposition. A vote was taken on the motion as amended. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to May 11, 1983. ~ Respectfully submitted, 74*. Michea1 D. G1 eason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:pv/CM8b12 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1983 Page 9