Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1983 Meeting (2) M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Council Chamber, City Hall June 13, 1983 7 : 30 p. m . COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, Dick Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith (commencement to 10:40 p.m.), 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Approval of Community Development Block Grant Jobs Bill Application (memo, resolution, Statement of Objectives, Housing Assistance Plan, citizen letter distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason said that the council would be considering the Housing Assistance Plan, which would not require a public hearing, as well as a special funding application for Community Development Block Grant Jobs Bill funds. He noted that if the staff recommendation for use of the Jobs Bill funds e was approved, the council would then need to consider a resolution authorizing the Roosevelt Boulevard project. Mr. Gleason said that these two latter items would require public hearings. He introduced Greg Byrne, Eugene Development Department staff. Mr. Byrne discussed the Housing Assistance Plan and noted that such a ~an had always been a part of the City's Block Grant application. He noted that in the past the plan had been prepared by Lane Council of Governments, but that this year L-COG had provided less support and the City staff had done most of the work on the plan. He said that the plan had been based on findings from a windshield survey of housing conditions in Eugene and on needs identified through census data on income levels by area. Mr. Byrne said the plan included reference to local goals and housing type preferences, with an emphasis on rehabilitating existing housing. He noted that a publiC hearing was not required on thi s item. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the Housing Assistance Plan. Councilor Wooten asked in what ways this plan differed from those of previous years. Mr. Byrne said that last year's plan was actually an extension of the previous year's plan, since the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had been in the process of developing new formulas and regulations for the program and had agreed to extend the life of former plans. He noted that this year's plan followed the newly developed formulas and regulations. Responding -- MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 1 further, Mr. Byrne said that the plan would focus on rehabilitation rather than e new construction, although new construction to serve the elderly or disabled would be eligible. Mr. Byrne said that he did not have figures on how the formulas differed from previous plans. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Byrne then discussed the COBG Jobs Bill application. He noted that Congress had provided these funds with a number of stringent conditions, including standard COBG regulations and a strict timeline. Mr. Byrne said that under these regulations the funds were available primarily for community development activities, not for direct provision of employment. He said that the City's application had to be received by the HUO office in Portland by July 1, 1983, and noted that this had resulted in considerable change and reduction in time of the processes usually followed by the City in developing its standard COBG application. Mr. Byrne added that the City's relations with the HUD staff were improving and that the City staff did not want to trespass on this by putting forth projects of questionable eligibility. Mr. Byrne said that the Jobs Bill regulations also called for extremely quick implementation, with quarterly rather than annual progress reports to HUD. He said that, for all these reasons, staff was recommending that the funds be allocated to programs that had already been publicly reviewed and approved, as well as to programs with low administra- tive costs. He noted that the Community Development Committee (CDC) had formed a subcommittee in April 1983 to develop the application for Jobs Bill funds, that the regulations on fund expenditures had been received in May, and that the CDC had held a public hearing on the subcommittee recommendations on June 9. He said that the CDC had agreed to pass the subcommittee recommendation on to the e council without changes. Mr. Byrne reviewed the recommended plan, which included funding of $600,000 for improvements to Roosevelt Boulevard in the Four Corners area, $70,000 for a shelter facility support fund, and $45,000 (6.3 percent) for administrative costs. He noted there was a possibility that HUD would rule the shelter support funds ineligible, in which case the recommendation was to channel the funds through the Joint Social Services allocation process. Mr. Byrne said that in response to considerable testimony at the June 9 COC meeting, CDC members had asked staff to meet with citizens who had proposals for use of the funds to review these proposals. He noted that this had been done and that citizens were present to testify to the council regarding these proposals. Councilor Wooten asked for more information on the Roosevelt Boulevard project and its relation to the Central Industrial Area study. Mr. Byrne responded that Roosevelt Boulevard was the northern boundary of the Central Industrial Area and that there was a possibility of connecting Roosevelt with the Chambers Connector. He said the project would improve access to vacant or underdeveloped industrial properties in the Four Corners area and would therefore support the goals of the City's adopted Six-Point Economic Diversification Program. Mr. Byrne noted that the project had been included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) but that funds were not available for implementation. He said that if the council approved the use of Jobs Bill funds for Roosevelt Boulevard, bid advertisements would be made on July 1 with construction completed by November. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 2 Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Eugene Development Department Director John Porter said that the Central Industrial Area (CIA) is still in the planning stages, but that the proposed capital improvements have been planned e for several years. He said it was estimated that over 100 acres of vacant property could be served if the CIA were developed and that this would create as many as 1,400 jobs over the next 10 to 20 years. Mr. Porter said that staff had revi ewed the enti re capi tal proj ects 1 i st to determi ne which as-yet-un funded projects were in areas meeting HUD guidelines for serving low-to-moderate income or blighted areas and had found that the Roosevelt Project was the only one meeting the guidelines. He noted that the Joint Committee on Economic Develop- ment had made a commitment to explore usi ng industri al renewal funds in thi s industrial redevelopment area. Councilor Lindberg noted that the CDC had forwarded the funding proposal presented by Mr. Byrne with an affirmative recommendation on the shelter facility funding but with ambivalent feelings on the Roosevelt Boulevard project. He said that the committee had been reluctant to approve the Roosevelt Boulevard project since it would not create jobs soon. He noted that staff had done its best to come up wi th a proposal in the 1 imi ted time all oted and that, to a 1 arge extent, any problems with the proposal resulted from the structure of the bill passed by Congress. Mr. Byrne apologized for not transmitting the CDC recommendation clearly. He discussed the ambivalence of the HUD regulations, which said that in order for a jurisdiction to claim a job as having been created with COBG funds, the job must be a permanent, full-time job that lasts at least two years. He noted that there were also a number of short-term jOb creation criteria in the Jobs Bill entitlement. e Public hearing was opened. Those speaki ng in favor of the staff recommendati on: Marshall Landman, 199 Kinney Loop, represented the board of directors of Switch- board. He said he understood the CDBG regulations and the reasons for the staff recommendation, but wished to present a draft proposal for use of Jobs Bill funds by Switchboard. He noted that Switchboard had been serving the community with referral services for 14 years and was the only comprehensive referral service in the county. He said Switchboard is funded through revenue-sharing, grants, and the work of numerous volunteers. He said that the majority of the people served are from Eugene and are of low-to-moderate income. He said that Switchboard's proposal was to use Jobs Bill funds to establish a full-time position to oversee development of a coordinated delivery of crisis relief through a central intake and referral point, usi ng computer technology for coordination. He said the need for this had been identified by the Joint Social Services Committee and the Vagrancy Task Force. Mr. Landman said that this proposal met the intent of the Jobs Bill and that he believed it would meet HUD requirements. Bill Uhlhorn, 2625 Hilyard Street, said he was director of Eugene Emergency Housing. He supported use of Jobs Bill funds for shelter support. He noted that the CDC, the Joint Housing Committee, the Vagrancy Task Force, and City staff had all voiced similar support for this proposed use of Jobs Bill funds. He said that the Lane County Housing Authority had offered to be the recipient e of the funds. Mr. Uhlhorn said that in the past five months Eugene Emergency Housing has had to turn away over 600 men, women, and children. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 3 Leonard Tronrud, 861 Arcadia Drive, supported the Roosevelt Boulevard project, which he said would increase the value of his property to keep it in line with e property taxes and would cut down on existing dust problems. Prosper J. Barbion, 2122 Roosevelt Boulevard, supported the Roosevelt Boulevard proJect, since he felt the street was badly in need of repairs. Steve Robinson, 4001 Potter Street--#53, said that he was a member of the Community Development Committee. He noted that the committee had met for two and one-half hours on June 9 to hear testimony and deliberate on the Jobs Bill appl ication. Mr. Robinson agreed that the Roosevelt Boulevard project was an attractive idea, especially with the possibility of a connection with the Chambers Connector, but he asked how that neighborhood qualified as low-income. He agreed that there are many unemployed or underemployed people who live in the area, but he questioned whether they were the ones who would benefit from the project, since few are property owners. He suggested the council consider a project that would use Jobs Bill funds to hire people to work in area parks or schools. He said that the $600,000 proposed for the Roosevelt project could be used to create 30 to 40 jobs, which, with local spending of earnings, would generate a cash flow equivalent to 60 to 80 jobs. He also felt the political implications of a decision to fund the Roosevelt project would be poor. Jerry Kramer, 2140 Roosevelt Boulevard #5, supported the Roosevelt Boulevard project due to the existing condition of the street, which he felt was hazardous, and which has caused a number of accidents. Susan Sowards, 1843 Moss Street, said she was chairperson of the Joint Social e Services Committee. She said that while the committee had not met to discuss the Jobs Bill proposal, she felt the group would support use of funds for emergency housing through some type of request for proposal process. She urged that funds be used for social services before capital projects. She supported using funds for housing rehabilitation. She urged that more than $70,000 be allocated to shelter housing support. Salvator J. Polito, 2040 Roosevelt Boulevard, said that the State Highway Division had purchased the houses on the south side of Roosevelt Boulevard 13 years ago with the intent ot putting a right-ot-way through the area. He noted this project had been abandoned and that the present street condition was ten feet of gravel on each side of 24 feet of pavement. He said that this was a hazardous situation and noted that a young cycl i st had been ki" ed on the road 1 ast year. He said a bicycle path was needed. He al so supported the improve- ments because they would solve the dust problem. Marven D. Mikkelsen, 2056 Roosevelt Boulevard, said that he and his wife had llved at that address for 47 years. He favored paving of the street for bicycle and pedestrian safety. He said that the Public Works Department had stated it would not improve the street until all needed improvements could be made to bring the street up to City standards. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 4 Harold M. Andersen, 2024 Roosevelt Boulevard, said that in view of time constraints, he would defer to other speakers. e Kate Graham, 1327 Lawrence Street, said that she was unemployed. She supported the allocation to shelter funds and said she believed high unemployment was driving people to seek shelter housing. Those speaking against the staff recommendation: Richard Guske, 278 North Grand Street, said he was a member of the Whiteaker Community Council and of the Vagrancy Task Force. He urged support of the shelter fund allocation. He was concerned how area unemployed would view use of Federal Jobs Bi 11 funds, intended to rel i eve unemployment, for a proj ect such as improving Roosevelt Boulevard. He suggested that funds coul d be used instead to make capital improvements in non-profit service agencies. He fel t the council should carefully consider all expenditures of the Jobs Bill funds. Gary Kutcher, 38535 J asper-Lowell Road, spoke for the Lane Unemployment Project proposal. He said that the $600,000 proposed for Roosevelt Boulevard improve- ments would only generate four person-years of work. He said thi s amoun t coul d be used to generate ten times as many jobs. He felt that to date planning for City use of the funds had not taken into consideration the needs of the unemployed. He urged the council not to support the Roosevelt Boulevard project. Pete Mandrapa, 4120 West Amazon, said that in view of time constraints, he would defer his time to Glen Gibbons. e Glen Gibbons, 50 Cedar Street, distributed written testimony. He said he was speaking for the Lane Unemployment Project, a group which was working to address the rights and problems of the unemployed. He asked supporters of the proj ect to stand [approximately 18 people stood]. He discussed the legislative intent of the Jobs Bill, which he fel t was to assi st the unemployed as rapi dly as possibl e. He sai d that the C; ty' s proposal fail ed to do thi s. He ci ted the exampl e of the Ci ty of Portl and, which had put one-third to one-hal f of its funds into social and human services. He noted that at the rate of $5 per hour over 60 full-time positions could be funded. He said that the multiplier effect of funds invested in salaries and then reinvested in the community was 1.5 for capital projects as opposed to 2.2 to 2.5 if the funds went directly into the pockets of residents. He said there was no guarantee that the Roosevel t Boul evard project would provide future jobs. Mr. Gibbons said that there had been 1 i ttl e effort to involve the publ ic in the decision on how to use these funds. He contrasted the $45,000 proposed for administration in Eugene with the $2,000 Springfield had earmarked for administration of its Jobs Bill funds. He said that the Lane Umemployment Project had distributed a proposal for use of Eugene Jobs Bi 11 funds to create a center to serve di spl aced workers. Peter Elliot-Wotton, 875 East 32nd Avenue, said that he had worked in advertising, public service, and broadcasting. He supported use of Jobs Bill funds for shel ter support but opposed using funds for Roosevelt Boulevard. He supported the proposal of the Crossroads Neighborhood Development Plan and said he believed the needs of seniors woul d be well met by the project. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 5 Jason Stathakis, 645 East 31st Street, said he had been involved with Crossroads e Neighborhood All i ance for some time and bel i eved the program had a good future. Linda Duggan, 728 West 5th Avenue, opposed use of Jobs Bill funds for the Roosevelt Boulevard project and supported the Crossroads neighborhood development plan. She said that the Crossroads area was blighted and needed redevelopment. She said that plan would create new industry, such as video production and computer programming. Mario Lobo Hernandez, 1115 Sunnyside Avenue, said that he was from Honduras and worked wlth the Eugene Spanish community. He supported the Crossroads Plan, which he felt would benefit Spanish people. Marilyn Finch, 3400 Kincaid Street, said that she had worked as a volunteer with Crossroads. She said that the Crossroads proposal would create jobs, including computer-monitored care for the elderly. She said this would include call-ins, coordinated grocery and food distribution, gardening, and home repair. She noted that she had worked with the Whiteaker and Blair projects and felt it was important to help local people coordinate their own solutions to area problems. Mayor Keller said that this concluded the time set aside for public testimony on this item and noted for the record that the following additional people had requested recogniti on to speak in opposition to the staff proposal: Reginald Richardson, 2933 Willamette Street--#10. Maryann Francis, 2340 Spring Boulevard. e G. V. Stathakis, 830 Hilyard Street. Bob Guldin, 110 Mayfair Lane. Philip J. Greene, 2176 Cosmoledo. Marilyn Bloch, 1876 Pierce Street. Howard Wade, 4265 Ferry Street. Mayor Keller asked if any of these people had new proposals or information to discuss. Mr. Stathakis said that he felt the Crossroads neighborhood proposal was a creative idea for job creation. Speaking with other comment: Jon Stafford, 1060 Madison Street, said that he was a member of the Community Development Committee. He discussed the fact that the CDC had passed the Roosevelt Boulevard proposal on to the council with no comment. He fel t that staff had done good work in developing the proposal under the time constraints, but he fel t that the Roosevel t proj ect di d not do justice to the job creati on opportunities provided by the Jobs Bill funds. He did not feel the project addressed the issue of eliminating blight or of serving low-income people. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 6 Mayor Keller noted for the record that the following people had asked to speak with other comment: e Richard Weinman, 1062 West 18th Place. Lucia McKelvey, 1337 Polk Street. Respondi ng to a question from Mayor Kell er, Ms. McKelvey said that she was opposed to funding for Roosevelt Boulevard and in favor of alternative ideas. Dee Tucker, 89813 Sprague Road. The time alloted for public testimony having expired, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Holmer asked how the timing of the Jobs Bill grant and allocations would fit in with the City's regular Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Byrne responded that the standard grant application had previously been approved by the council and submitted and that funds should be available by July I, 1983. He said that the Jobs Bill funds would also be available at that time. Councilor Lindberg asked if work on Roosevelt Boulevard could be phased. City Engineer Bert Teitzel responded that the paving would need to be done in one phase, at a cost of $520,000, but that the $80,000 for the si gnal at Highway 99 could be done as a separate phase. Mr. Lindberg noted that the Roosevelt Boulevard proposal included a subsidy of assessments that would normally be charged to abutting property owners. He asked if a lesser subsidy could be e made and still enable the project to be accomplished without raising the cost to the City. Mr. Teitzel responded that the $150,000 amount of the proposed assessment was about half the amount that would normally be assessed. He sa i d that if assessments were made at the full rate, approximately $150,000 to $200,000 in funds would be made available. Councilor Ball asked when the Roosevelt Boulevard project might be accomplished if Jobs Bill funds were not used. Mr. Teitzel responded that although the project was budgeted for FY84, funds would probably not be available until FY85 or FY86. Councilor Wooten asked if staff had considered requesting funds fUr Roosevelt Boulevard improvements through Economic Development Administration funds which focus on infrastructure. Mr. Byrne and Mr. Teitze1 responded that such an application had been made for another portion of Roosevelt Boulevard but that the request was denied. Respondi ng to further questions from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Teitzel said that the subsidized cost proposed per front foot for the Roosevelt project was $21.50, as compared with a standard assessment of $45 per front foot. Councilor Schue asked what the staff's rationale was for subsidizing this particular assessment. She said she could not recollect any precedent for assessing less than the standard residential street rate. Mr. Byrne said staff had felt that the neighborhood in question qualified for support through the CDBG Jobs Bill as a low-to-moderate income area. Ms. Schue asked if most of those who would benefit from the subsidy were landlords rather than low-to- e moderate income residents of the area. Mr. Byrne said that he did not have figures on owner-occupied versus rented residences. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 7 Councilor Wooten noted that staff had met with those supporting some of the e alternative proposals and asked whether staff felt the proposals would be eligible under the program guidelines. Mr. Byrne responded that projects to maintain existing facilities, such as parks, would be ineligible. He said that projects which provided a public service, such as outreach or referral could be eligible if it can be demonstrated that those who would benefit are residents of the City and are 10w- and moderate-income people. He noted that the administra- tive costs of monitoring and reporting on such programs were traditionally very high. Councilor Lindberg said he believed that a large portion of the residents of the Roosevelt Boulevard area were renters who would therefore not directly benefit from the subsidy. Mayor Keller asked about the Portland Jobs Bill program. Mr. Byrne said he was not familiar with the Portland program. Mr. Keller asked how the costs of administration estimated by Eugene compared with those of Springfield. Mr. Byrne said he had spoken with Springfield staff and believed the Springfield funds would be used for storm sewer work and rehabilitation projects to be accomplished through the Lane County Housing Authority. He said that use of the Housing Authority's services would lower administrative costs. Councilor Smith asked if the Switchboard, Lane Unemployment Program, and Crossroads proposals had been reviewed by the CDC. Mr. Byrne responded affirmatively and said staff had met with representatives of those groups to discuss ways in which their proposals could be modified to comply with HUD regulations. Responding to further questions, Mr. Byrne said he believed that the Switchboard proposal had e been reviewed by the Joint Social Services Committee, but he did not believe that the other proposals had. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Teitzel said that if the traffic signal on Roosevelt was deleted from the proposal and if assessment subsidies were removed, approximately $230,000 to $280,000 could be cut from the original $600,000 proposal. The council took a brief recess. Councilor Lindberg said that the Federal Jobs Bill legislation had produced great expectations but that the HUD bureaucracy made it almost impossible for jurisdictions to meet those expectations. He believed that the Roosevelt project was a good one but noted that it would take a large portion of funds allocated to the City and would only generate jobs over the long term. He suggested that $250,000 be cut back from the funds proposed for Roosevelt and that a portion of this be allocated to the Joint Social Services Committee fUr projects the committee had already evaluated and prioritized. He suggested that a review be made of the requests for proposals received last year for job creation through use of economic development funds and that the remaining portion of the Jobs Bill funds be used to fund some of these proposals. Mr. Lindberg said he believed this suggestion would meet both the moral obligation of the City and the legislative intent for use of the Jobs Bill funds. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 8 Mr. Gleason noted that staff had already held a neighborhood hearing on the e proposed improvements in the Roosevelt area and had scheduled the initiation of the project for a future council hearing. He said that if the council decides to change the assessment structure, he would recommend that another staff hearing be held and that the initiation be delayed. He noted that the project construction schedule was tight and that a delay in the project, which could occur if there were a remonstrance, could make it impossible to do the construc- tion this year, thus rendering it ineligible under the Jobs Bill. Councilor Wooten agreed that improving Roosevelt Boulevard was an important part of industrial revitalization for the City, but she was uncomfortable with using Jobs Bill funds in such a limited manner. She noted that the council had agreed in the past to use 25 percent of the standard COBG funds over a three-year period for economic diversification and suggested that 25 percent of these funds be treated in the same way. Councilor Schue felt that there was no reason to subsidize these particular assessments. She noted that a large portion of the property involved was owned by the State of Oregon and asked whether the State would pay an assessment for its properties. Mr. Teitzel responded about 30 to 40 percent of the property involved was owned by the State. He said that if the State determined that the property was excess, the assessments would probably be paid when the property was sold. Responding to questions from Councilor Hansen, Mr. Gleason said it might be possible for the council to adopt the proposal in such a way that the assessment subsidies were made only for low- and moderate-income property owners. He e stressed, however, that the council should only take this step if the council was willing to override any potential remonstrance. Responding to a question from Councilor Obie, Mr. Porter said that reduced assessments had been made in the past for improvements on Coburg Road and on States streets. He said the States streets reductions were made on the basis of the low income level of the area. He noted that in that assessment owner-occupants and investor-owners had been assessed equally. Responding to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Teitzel said that the streets leading into Skinner Butte park had been assessed at the full assessment. Councilor Obie said he favored the staff proposal, since he believed that Eugene's real need was for long-term economic diversification and that making the Four Corners area accessible for industrial growth would help meet this long-term need. He felt this economic diversification effort would help compensate for the decline in the timber industry. Councilor Ball said the issue was long- versus short-term economic solutions. He felt that the council was addressing the long-term issues in other ways and that the intent of the administration and Congress was to use the Jobs Bill funds for short-term solutions. He agreed that the Roosevelt Boulevard project was very important but felt it should be addressed in the normal capital budgeting process of the City. Mr. Ball recognized that the City was placed in a difficult position by being asked to provide employment through the Jobs Bill funds, but he felt that a creative solution could be found. He therefore opposed the staff e recommendation and urged that alternative proposals be developed quickly. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 9 Councilor Holmer suggested that the assessment reduction for the Roosevelt Boulevard project be limited to those properties qualifying under the low-to- e moderate income category and that the remaining funds not used for assessment subsidies be used for other purposes which the council could identify soon. Mayor Keller said that the council had put much effort into the Four Corners area and that he believed these efforts would benefit the entire city. He supported the proposed assessment subsidies and opposed ~moving the suggested $200,000 to $250,000 from the $600,000 suggested by staff. He opposed c~ati on of some new enterpri se to hel p the unemployed when the State al ready provi des such services. He suggested that the contract for the Roosevelt project could be written to stipulate employment for particular groups. Mr. Keller said that in view of the real time constraints involved, he bel ieved the staff proposal was a good one. Councilor Wooten said she did not support the staff proposal. She asked staff to report at the Wednesday council meeting on the effect on the Roosevelt project funding of eliminating the interest rate write-down for State-owned properties. She suggested that funds generated from this elimination and from elimination of the proposed traffic signal could be used instead in ongoing or new economic diversification efforts. She noted that Councilor Lindberg had also presented the option of using $250,000 of the Jobs Bill funds for projects identified through the Joint Social Services Committee. She sai d that the unemployment rate in Lane County was 12 percent and that these people needed short-term hel p. Councilor Lindberg suggested that the $60,000 which could be saved if only low- e to-moderate income property owners received subsidies for Roosevelt improvements, plus the $80,000 that could be saved by eliminating the traffic signal, could be divided between economic development projects that were approved in last year1s RFP process and projects identified by the Joint Social Services Committee. Mr. Obie said that he would move adoption of the staff recommendation and noted that if Mr. Gleason wanted to return with a different configuration for the assessment subsidies at the June 15, 1983, council meeting, the council could debate at that time how any additional funds would be used. Mr. Obie noted that the intent of his motion was to fund the project in full with no reductions in the development proposed in the staff proposal. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the Community Development Block Grant Jobs Bill application as presented by staff. Councilor Smith said she would support the motion with the understanding that if additional funds were available through an alteration in assessment subsidies, the counci 1 woul d debate at a future time how those funds woul d be spent. Councilor Hansen said he would support the motion since he believed the Roosevelt Boulevard project was very important. He did not favor any reduction in the funds proposed for a traffic light. He fel t any extra funds resul ting from a reduction in assessment subsidi es shoul d be spent on job creation, not on sod al serv ices. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 10 ---- Councilor Holmer said that he would vote in favor of the motion, with the understanding that by doing so he would be able to move for reconsideration e at a future council meeting if he wished to do so. Councilor Wooten urged that the council not vote on the matter at thi s time but wait to see what other options staff could offer as a result of the council di scussi on. Councilor Obie clarified that the motion asked staff to study the assessment ramifications for the properties owned by the State of Oregon and to determine whether the assessment subsidies met the funding regulations for Jobs Bill funds. The vote of the council was tied, with Councilors Hansen, Holmer, Obie, and Smith voting in favor, and Councilors Ball, Lindberg, Schue, and Wooten voting in opposition. Mayor Kell er broke the tie with a vote in favor. Motion carried 5:4. Mayor Keller thanked citizens who had participated in the hearing. In view of time constraints, Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to hold items I-C--Housing Code Repeal and Related Amendments, I-D-1--Panhandle Lot Modification Code Amendments, and I-D-2--Group Care and Day Care Code Amendments, over to Wednesday, June 15, 1983, at 11:45 a.m. Mayor Keller asked if there were any strong objections to this e from those present. Hearing no objections; roll call vote; motion carried 7:1, with Councilors Hansen, Holmer, Lindberg, Obie, Smith, Schue, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilor Ball voting in opposition. Public hearing was opened on Res. No. 3782, authorizing paving and sidewalks on Roosevelt Boulevard. There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3782--A resolution authorizing paving and sidewalks on Roosevelt Boulevard from Highway 99 to Garfield Street (845). ~Is. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Abatement of Property Located at 2285 West 11th Avenue (memo, posting, resolution, citizen letter, additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspec- tion. Mr. Reed noted that the subject property was located just behind the Les Schwab tire store on West 11th Avenue. He said construction on the building was started in 1973 but never completed. He said that the building had been main- tained between 1973 and 1976, but that in 1977 and again in 1981 the building - had been left open and abandoned and had been declared unsafe by the City. Mr. Reed noted that on both occasions corrective measures (i.e., building boarded up) had been taken by the property owner prior to council consideration of abatement proceedings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 11 Mr. Reed said that since 1982 the building had once again been open and abandoned. He said that in April 1983 a fire run had been made to the building involving 13 e City firefighters. He noted that subsequent to that run, the Fire Marshal had requested the Building Division to initiate abatement. Mr. Reed noted that the President of Les Schwab Tire Company had sent a letter regarding the abatement and that the letter had been included in materials distributed to councilors. Mr. Reed showed some slides of the subject building. Public hearing was opened. Jack L. Hough, 925 Ascot Drive, said he was a commercial realtor and represented the owners of the property at 2285 West 11th Avenue. He said the owners requested an extension of the proceedings. He said that he was currently working with representatives of a non-profit charitable group that had expressed an interest in the property. He believed that in a few weeks an agreement might be reached on a lease or lease option for the property that would lead to having the building put back into a usable condition. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Reed noted that the resolution before the council would give the property owners 45 days in which to obtain a building permit for renovation of the building. He said this would also allow prospective buyers to find out the amount and type of renovation that the City Code would require for the building. Mr. Hough said that 45 days was not enough time for the prospective lessee to obtain architectural plans needed for a building permit application. e Mr. Gleason suggested that if a delay was requested, a bond could be posted by the owners equal to the cost of demolition. He noted that the dangerous condition of the building had been an issue for a number of years. Councilor Obie asked if the property owners had been cooperative in boarding up the building when requested to do so. Mr. Reed said that such efforts had been made only immediately prior to scheduled abatement proceedings before the City Council. Responding to a question from Councilor Hansen, Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that if the building is not made safe within 45 days the matter would be returned to the council for the council to review staff abatement action. He said that no enforcement would take place until the council had considered the matter again. He noted there was no time limit on the City.s initiating an order for demolition. Res. No. 3783--A resolution ordering the abatement of property at 2285 West 11th Avenue. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 12 The following items were held over: e C. Housing Code Repeal and Related Amendments D. Code Amendments 1. Panhandle Lot Modification Code Amendments (CA 82-8) 2. Group Care and Day Care Code Amendments (CA 82-9) The council proceeded with the remainder of the agenda. E. Removal of Street Parking on Hilyard Street (memo, citizen letter distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced City Traffic Engineer Jim Hanks. Mr. Hanks said the council would be considering an appeal of a staff decision to remove parking on Hilyard Street south of 34th Avenue. He said that staff had made the decision as part of installation of a left turn pocket and pedestrian refuge in response to concerns expressed by representatives of Good Samaritan Retirement Home. Mr. Hanks said Good Samaritan representatives had made the request in the interest of seniors who were having difficulty crossing the street. He noted that owners of the seven properties affected by the parking removal had been contacted and that four had been in favor, two had been opposed, and one had not responded. The plan was then modified to accommodate the objections of one of those opposed, but could not be modified to meet the objections of the other person objecting. Mr. Hanks stated that the installation had been made last e summer. He said staff recommended denial of the appeal, since there had been little demand for the former on-street parking, there was adequate off-street parking, and the striping had increased pedestrian and vehicle safety. Mr. Hanks used an overhead projector to show the design and location of the pedestrian refuge. Responding to a question from Councilor Ball, Mr. Hanks said that this type of striping was one of the best traffic control methods available for use in such situations. Public hearing was opened. Gunter Brunk, 2360 Elysium, said he was the administrator of the Good Samaritan Center. He supported the staff recommendation to retain the striping. He said that center residents could not cross the street without a refuge point and that the flat surface of the island, with no step up, was most appropriate for seniors. Mark Jones, 3500 Hilyard Street, said that the island was not in the way of traffic and that it helped elderly people to cross the street. Cecil F. Robe, 3500 Hilyard Street, said that there was heavy traffic on Hilyard Street and the employees, residents, and visitors of Good Samaritan needed a refuge and safeguard in crossing the street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 13 Vic Smith, 3469 Hilyard Street, said he owns the property that would like to e have parking restored. He di stributed wri tten materi al and a map of the IYoperty to councilors. He noted Mr. Hanks had commented that the driveway from his property onto Hilyard was seldom used. Mr. Smith said that this was not the case and that he used the driveway daily during the week. He said that there was no way for him to use the driveway without either backing into traffic or stopping in traffic to back into the parki ng space. He agreed that it was hazardous for seniors to cross Hilyard at this point and suggested they walk to the push button traffic signal at the corner rather than jaywalking in the middle of the block. He noted that Portland Manor at West 29th Avenue has such a signal. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Hanks noted that jaywalking was not illegal in Eugene. He said that installa- tion of a pedestrian-activated crossing signal at this intersection was on the list of proposed future installations but that it was far enough down on the list so that it could be decades before it was funded. Mr. Hanks noted that the gravel driveway discussed by Mr. Smith was not the primary access to the main parki ng lot. He said staff had tried to strike a balance between the needs of seniors in the area and inconvenience caused to Mr. Smith. Responding to a question from Councilor Hansen, Mr. Hanks said that the lIislandll was a reflectorized divider and that the reflectors would be visible at night. Councilor Smith left the meeting. e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to deny the appeal. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING: LEVYING ASSESSMENTS/REFERRAL TO JUNE 20 HEARINGS PANEL CB 2651--An ordinance 1 evyi ng assessments for all ey pavi ng between Ferry Street and Patterson Street from 17th Avenue to 18th Avenue (83-06). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for heari ng June 20, 1983, wi th panel recommendation to be brought back for council consideration June 27, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2652--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Hawthorne Street from 500 feet west of Berntzen Road (83-07). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing June 20, 1983, with panel recommendation to be brought back for council consideration June 27, 1983. Roll call vote; e motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 14 r CB 2653--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary - sewer, and storm sewer in Willow Creek Road and Willow Creek Circle from the intersection of 18th Avenue and Willow Creek Road to 2,200 feet west; and sanitary sewer and storm sewer from the western terminus of Willow Creek Circle to 800 feet south (83-08). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing June 20, 1983, with panel recommendation to be brought back for council consideration June 27, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. CLARIFICATION OF REQUESTED STAFF ACTION ON ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT AND JOBS BILL APPLICATION Mr. Gleason requested further clarification and direction on what the council was requesting staff to present at the June 15 council meeting relative to the Roosevelt Boulevard portion of the Jobs Bill application. Councilor Obie said that the intent of his motion was that staff return with a recommended assessment package for the Roosevel t Boul evard proj ect. Mr. Obie said that if the council.s action on this recommendation resulted in freeing up some of the Jobs Bill funds, the council would discuss at that time how these funds would be used. The meeting was adjourned to June 15, 1983. e Respectfully submitted, :t:~ Mi eal D. G1e son City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:ce/CM27b1 - e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 15