Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/1984 Meeting (2) - e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber June 11, 1984 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Dick Hansen, Freeman Holmer, and Betty Smith. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PROCLAMATION REGARDING MAY 15, 1984, PUBLIC ELECTION Mayor Keller proclaimed the following: "I hereby proclaim and declare the following: That Measure 51, Authorizing Downtown Free Parking District Tax was passed, 17,651 'Yes' to 10,738 'No,' effective July 1, 1984. That Brian B. Obie received a majority of the votes cast for Mayor, and his name will appear on the City ballot in the November, 1984, general election as the candidate for Mayor. That Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Cynthia Wooten and Roger Rutan received a majority of the votes cast for council positions in Wards 2, 3, 7 and 8, respectively, and their names will appear on the City ballot in the November 1984 'election as the candidates for the respective Council positions representing those wards. That Camilla Pratt received a majority of the votes cast for EWEB Wards 2 and 3; Sarah Hendrickson received a majority of the votes cast for EWEB Wards 6 and 7; and James Reinmuth received a majority of the votes cast for EWEB Wards 1 and 8, and their names will appear on the City ballot in the November .1984 "election as the candidates for the respective Eugene Water & Electric Board positions representing those wards." Dated this 11th day of June, 1984. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 1 - e e II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 10th and Oak Assessment District--Rebate of Net Operating Revenues (memo, ordinance, resolution distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Due to a potential conflict of interest, Mayor Keller turned the chair over to Councilor Obie and left the meeting at this time. Finance Director Warren Wong presented the staff report, stating that the 10th and Oak Assessment District was established in 1966. He explained that the district received revenue from the structure parking as well as from assessments of the area property owners. Expenditures from that funding included structure maintainance and the debt service. The difference between the revenue and the expenditures being the net operating revenue which was to be rebated to the property owners within the assessment district. Mr. Wong stated that in 1972 the City Council had created the Downtown Development District to finance and administer the free parking program, that code formulation also stating that the ODD would have priority over any rebates. Referring to his June 7, 1984. memorandum to the City Council, he reviewed the six recommendations developed by staff as part of the study directed by the council and as presented to the council on March 12, 1984. In response to a question by Councilor Obie, Mr. Wong stated that staff will present five or six options regarding the disposition of remaining funds to the Downtown Commission on June 12, those same options to be presented to the City Council on June 25. He said the council will be asked to give direction to staff on that date. In response to a question regarding Section 5 of the pro- posed ordinance, Mr. Wong stated that the excess funds will either be retained in the fund for use in the ODD or could be rebated to the property owners. He added that there was no predisposition of those funds. In response to a question regarding the June 7, 1984 memorandum, Mr. Wong stated that approximately $700,000 of the net operating revenue would be applied as credits on the lien dockets of the 10th and Oak assessment payers. The public hearing was opened. Neal Sande, 294 West 11th Avenue, stated that he was against the letter which he recelved from the City regarding the discussion of the $900,000 in rebates owed to the assessment district payers. He said it was up to the City to complete the promise made to the citizens of Eugene. He distributed copies of the City Council minutes of February 14, 1972, in which the council at that time stated that the net operating revenue for the assessment district was to be declared and that the entire principal and part of the interest was to be rebated. While he believed that everyone was in favor of paying off the bonds, he stressed the need to maintain the issue in a positive vein and that all the money should be rebated. Ralph Robinson, 1555 East 31st Avenue, stating that he had been chairperson of the assessment district at its beginning, said he had promised the property MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 2 e e e owners that the money would be rebated to them starting in the eleventh year. He said he had made promises supposedly for the City and that the City should now keep those promises. He asked if the rebates would be made to current property owners or to those individuals who had paid the assessments. He said he generally supported the ordinance although he disliked some aspects. Bob Loomis, 3540 Pearl Street, stated that he was a past chairperson of the Downtown Development Board, now the Downtown Commission. He said the board had supported the program and the annual elections. He said he congratulated the staff in reconstructing the history of the program. Of the six recommendations listed in Mr. Wong's June 7, 1984 memorandum, he said he favored the first five, stating that the funds to be rebated now totalled approximately $450,000. He said any Downtown Commission decision on June 12 with regard to the fifth recommendation would be moot if the council passed the ordinance at the present meeting. He stressed that that recommendation precluded any argument by the assessment payers. Louis Walker, 975 Oak Street, said he was half owner of the Citizen's Building. He sald that Dave Hunt of the Downtown Development Board had promised that the 10th and Oak Assessment District would be self-eliminating. While he stated that he had not had time to study the material, he said he was opposed to the ordinance as written. George Boehnke, 2040 Willamette Street, referring to the City Council minutes of February 14, 1984, said the Overpark was to have been self-liquidating. He said the City should rebate the funds to those people who paid for the Overpark so that it did not create the image of the City not keeping its promises. Mark Schlesinger, 610 Southwest Alder Street, Portland, representing the Mark Schleslnger Company of Portland, stated that he had been notified by letter of the rebate of the $900,000. He stated that he will recommend to the company to sell its Eugene properties because it could not afford to support the develop- ment of the Eugene downtown area. Lewis Hoffman, 888 West Park Street, echoed the comments made by the previous individuals. He commented that the City would be in court on a fraud charge if the assessment district action had been an agreement between two individuals. Tom Slocum, 2610 Highland Oak Drive, said he was a property owner in the assess- ment district at the time the Overpark was created. While he did not like the prospect of paying for the Overpark, he felt he had a stake in the community. He said he voted on the bond issues based on the promises made by the City Council and the City Manager at that time. He said he still had feelings for the downtown but that the City must keep its promises. He felt the City had the ability to payoff the bonds and return the funds to the property owners; the City would then have the Overpark structure from which to earn future revenue. He said the City would have additional problems if it did not keep its promises. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 3 e e e In response to questions raised in the public testimony, Mr. Wong stated that the $190,000 ad valorem tax levy to support the downtown parking program was approved by the Downtown Commission and by the voters in the May 15 primary election. He stated that it was a separate levy imposed only on the DDD property owners. With respect to the comment on the legal owners of the property, he said the property price incorporated any liens on the properties, such liens to stay with the property. David Jewett, acting as the council's attorney on this issue, explained that the property owners were given credit for the taxes paid prior to the annual assessment date. He said he understood that the balance of the liens against the property was all that remained in the fund. Mr. Wong stated that any rebate would be made to the present district property owners. Mr. Jewett stated that that the process of determining who will receive the rebate will be a lengthy issue, adding that ~he calculations will be made on a . year-to-year basis. Mr. Gl eason added that' staff will attempt to provide equity to.all concerned. Regarding the comment addressing Section 5 of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Wong stated that the section did not preclude the council from declaring any rebates. He explained that either of staff recommen- dations 2 or 3 as listed in his June 7 memorandum could be applied to this issue and that rebates could be performed during the first quarter of 1985. He added that the City Council could also change the intent of the ordinance. In response to a question on the net operating revenues, Mr. Wong explained that approximately $1,600,000 remained, of which approximately $785,000 would be rebated to the Band D property owners for assessments paid and approximately $700,000 was the difference between the the net operating revenues and expendi- tures. Councilor Wooten said she understood that the potential rebate amount would be approximately $700,000. Councilor Smith said she felt that the Finance staff were not working well with the DDD in this issue and that further discus- sion and clarification was needed. Mr. Wong responded that he had worked through the Downtown Commission in notifying all the affected property owners. He also stated that he had discussed the issue with some of the individuals who testified. He said that he had no disagreement with the 1966 and 1972 council minutes on the intent of the City to return the funds, but added that the Eugene Code contained no explicit expression of that intent. In response to a question, Mr. Wong stated that the amount in excess of the $700,000 was derived from interest earnings. He said the difference between $150,000 and $500,000 to be rebated would be determined by the exact amount of those earnings less legal and administrative costs. Mr. Gleason stated that several steps were involved in making any rebates and that the steps would involve some time. I~ response to a question by Mr. Hansen regarding the rebate amount, Mr. Wong stated that staff had presented five options to the council for the excess funds, to include returning the funds to the property owners, rolling over the funds from the Bancroft bonds to the most recent series of bonds, or leaving the funds in the 10th and Oak District for maintenance purposes or for capital improvement or renovation. Mr. Hansen suggested that Section 5 of the proposed ordinance be deleted because he felt that the action as specified in the language was presently bei ng performed. In response to a request for clarification regarding the net operating revenue balance, Mr. Wong stated that $100,000 would be given to the DDD, $800,000 to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 4 the Band D property owners and the remalnlng $700,000 would be rebated to the 10th and Oak assessment payers. He added that the Eugene Code specified that a ~ priority should be given to these individuals. Councilor Obie commented that the controversy in the rebate issue was the interest earned by the assessment funds. Mr. Gleason explained that Section 5 of the proposed ordinance was designed to close out the fund so that it could be cancelled prior to June 30, 1985. Mr. Hansen said he did not want to close the issue of the interest until it was resolved. Mr. Gleason stated that Section 5 did not preclude the council from making any determinations regarding the fund. Mr. Ball said he did not see any need for further clarification, stating that the council would have the final determination regarding any rebates. Ms. Smith asked that staff present further clarification on Section 5 and the interest/ rebate issue to the council at its June 13 or 18 meeting. Mr. Gleason commented that any action on the rebates will still have to go through the Downtown Commission and the City Council. Ms. Smith suggested that action on Section 5 be delayed until it was further clarified, allowing the council to act on the rest of the ordinance. Mr. Gleason stated that any modification of Section 5 would not have any effect on the final determination. e Mr. Obie said he would be more comfortable with a clarified Section 5. He suggested that the council send the issue back to staff for a rewrite of that section. Mr. Ball stated that he saw no reason for any delay, stating that the assurances requested were included in the ordinance. He stressed that the council will take the final action on any rebates; therefore any delay or modifications will have no effect on the final action. Mr. Hansen said he was comfortable with the assurances made by Mr. Gleason, adding that he will support the ordinance as written. CB 2749--An ordinance regarding the Downtown Development District; authorizing a tax levy of $190,000; satis- fying debt due the Downtown Development District Fund (No. 113) from the 10th and Oak Overpark Fund (No. 521); adjusting the tax liability of individual property within the Downtown Development District for satis- faction of debt. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 2749 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1, Mr. Obie voting nay, and the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19253). Res. No. 3861--A resolution directing the City Manager to seek judicial review of Ordinance No. 19253 (CB 2749). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 5 e e e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Gleason said he felt the issue was complex but that the council and staff will work to ensure that all monies are rebated. He reiterated that several steps will have to be taken in the rebate process. He said he will assume the responsibility for not calling the bonds until all can be called at one time. Councilor Smith said she felt that some misunderstanding still existed; she said that the City must clarify the process to the property owners. Ms. Wooten suggested that staff develop a more exact projection of the interest monies and research the pattern or model used by other cities in such assessment projects. Mr. Hansen temporarily left the meeting at this time. Mr. Wong stated that staff can recompute the amount of excess funds, but he felt that the calculation performed in April were the most accurate as of this date. He added that the 10th and Oak Assessment District program was perhaps the most complex process, stating that no precedent existed for the rebate of excess funds. Mr. Hansen rejoined the meeting at this time. B. Code Amendment to Merchant Police Business License (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Business License Supervisor Terry Grondona presented the staff report. Reviewing the June 8, 1984 memorandum from Finance Director Warren Wong to the City Council, Ms. Grondona stated that Police Chief James Packard was present to answer any questions of council. The public hearing was opened. Robert B. Thompson, 2108 Lincoln Street, operator of Oregon Event Enterprises, stated that he had previously testified at the November 21 public hearing on this issue. He felt that a breakdown in the process had occurred, stating that he had understood that staff would contact the involved parties for input into the code amendment. He stated that the only communication he received was the May 26 letter with the revised draft of the code amendment. He stated that he was concerned with the $3 worker fee, explaining that he foresaw employing 150 workers during the year and that $450 in licensing fees was excessive. He said he did not see the need for the Eugene Police Department to review each employee because he was bonded and had insurance for his workers. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Responding to the testimony, Ms. Grondona stated that staff had recommended a $6 fee for each worker at the November 21 public hearing but that staff had deter- mined that a $3 fee would cover the cost of reviewing each applicant. She said staff felt a responsibility to the citizens of Eugene to review the applicants. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 6 e e e Councilor Wooten, stating that the work involved was temporary, asked why it would be necessary to recheck those individuals each time they worked. Chief Packard stated that he was surprised to hear any opposition to the code amendment, stating that it was the responsibility of the City to perform a minimal check on those individuals performing the security services for events attended by local citizens. Ms. Wooten asked if the fee could be established on a per check basis. Chief Packard said the check performed on the temporary personnel was primarily a check of existing records which could change on a weekly basis while the checks for Merchant Police I and II were more involved. He did not feel the $3 fee will cover the costs of performing the review. Councilor Holmer asked what consistency existed in the personnel used for the security services. Mr. Thompson estimated that he would use 60 to 70 individuals on a continuing basis to cover about 25 events during the year. In response to a question by Mr. Hansen regarding the $3 fee, Ms. Grondona stated that the license fee would lapse after 30 days. She added that an individual would no longer be considered a temporary employee if he or she worked more than seven days during a 30-day period. While he supported the records check process, Mr. Hansen felt that the ordinance needed some clarification. In response to a question by Ms. Wooten regarding Mr. Hansen's suggestion that the fee cover a 30-day period, Ms. Grondona stated that the suggestion could be incorporated administratively. Mr. Hansen commented that Section 2 of the ordinance did not clearly specify that intent. CB 2673--An ordinance concerning merchant police; amending Sections 3.005, 3.010, and 3.314 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 2673 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19254). C. Objection to the Posting of a Notice to Abate Nuisances in the 1900 Block of Highway 99 North (Big Apple Area) (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection Larry Reed presented the staff report. Reviewing his June 11, 1984 memorandum to the City Council, he stated that the appropriate MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 7 . e e section of the Eugene Code as referred to in Item 2(a) should be Chapter 6. He read Section 6.035 of the Eugene Code into the record for clarification: Rodent Control - Premises to be Kept Clean of Conditions Attracting Rats. All premises improved or unimproved, and all open lots, streets, sidewalks, alleys and other areas in the city shall be kept clean and free from all rubbish, as well as from loose material that might serve as a harbor for rats and mice. All lumber, boxes, barrels, loose iron and material that might harbor rats shall be placed upon supports in such manner as to provide no refuge for rats and mice. Of the seven areas described in the memorandum, Mr. Reed stated that Mary's Flower Shop and Areas Band C had been cleaned up. He distributed photographs of the seven areas to the council, stating that staff felt that Area F was particularly significant. He said that he will not make a point by point rebuttal of the written objection, stating that the photographs would speak for themsel ves. The public hearing was opened. Russell Bevans, 777 High Street #222, stated that he was representing Diamac, Inc., the owners of the subject property. He felt that the issue involved a difference of opinion with regard to the period during which the nuisance had existed. He explained that Diamac, Inc. obtained ownership of the property in January and that some of the posted areas were on the newly purchased property. He added that clean-up measures were presently being performed. Mr. Bevans distributed 22 photographs of the subject areas, stating that Photographs 1 through 8 were of adjacent and nearby properties while the remaining photographs were of the areas outlined by staff. He stated that he has not reviewed the photographs taken by staff. He stated that Mary's Flower Shop and the two wood piles in Area A had been cleaned. He explained that the wood was from the existing building and was being recycled by selling the wood as firewood and heating the existing building. While staff stated that the wood should be stacked, Mr. Bevans stated that the nearby Lane Plywood Company was selling firewood from similar piles. While he said staff had issued an ultimatum that the firewood should be 12 to 18 inches above the ground, he stated that no code provision cited that distance. He said Photographs 1 through 8 demonstated other businesses not using the 12 to 18-inch requirement. With regard to Area B, Mr. Bevans stated that the pile was located behind some buildings. As stated in the memorandum, Mr. Bevans said the area had been cleaned up so that the issue no longer existed. He said the the demolition of one of the buildings in Area 0 had been completed and the material was now being recycled in Area A. He commented that the "jail" building was safe and that no determination had been made to its future use. He said that the staff statement regarding a building under demolition could also apply to any building under construction or unsightly building. Referring to Photographs 18 and 19, Mr. Bevans stated that staff had mentioned that this area was slightly improved. He said the area will be cleaned up by the contractor and the pile of debris was temporary and not a nuisance. He added that any construction debris could be considered a nuisance under the staff definition. Referring to Photographs 20, 21, and 22, he stated that staff had mentioned that this area was slightly improved. He explained MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 8 ~ e e that the present piles were made after the posting by staff. He said that Di amac, Inc. had an agreement with Southern Pacifi c to fi 11 the area and pl ant Christmas trees. Mr. Bevans stated that staff was relying on the code language to define any unsightly debris as a nuisance. He countered that Section 6.010(c) provided no objective basis for determining the term "unsightly." He suggested that the language was attempting to define such debris as decomposing animal and vegetable matter as a health hazard, adding that such language would include all garden compost piles. With regard to the issue of the height stacking requirement, Mr. Bevans stated that the piles were temporary and should not be addressed. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Wooten asked for clarification between the piles of wood and other debris. Mr. Reed stated that three of the areas had been cleaned up in com- pliance with the code but that three other areas were still unsightly and rat harbors as defined by the code. He said the seventh area, Area F, had been improved but still contained items that had been dumped into the drainage way. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to abate the nuisances as described by staff and adopt the findings contained in the orders To Abate Nuisance of May 17, 1984. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously: 6:0. Councilor Hansen stated that he had made a tour of the area and he agreed that other areas in the city were not in compliance with the ordinance. He urged staff to work on bringing the other areas into compliance as well. In response to a question by Ms. Wooten, Mr. Reed stated that the individual has 10 days to abate the public nuisance as stipulated by Section 6.985 or the City would remove the nuisance and bill the owners. III. CONSIDERATION OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL FINDINGS/LEVYING ASSESSMENTS A. Hearings Official Findings of June 4, 1984 (memo distributed) B. Levying Assessments City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda items. There was no staff report on the items. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the Hearings Official IS findings of June 4, 1984. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. CB 2750--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Oanebo Avenue from Royal Avenue to'11th Avenue. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 9 e tit e Council Bill 2750 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19255) . Mr. Gleason stated that staff will be considering redesigning the notice of abatements into a possible Hearings Official program. III. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL VACANCY IN WARD THREE (memo distributed) Ci ty Manager Micheal Gl eason introduced the agenda item. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to appoint Debra Ehrman to the vacant council position in Ward 3; term to expire January 7, 1985. Councilor Ball asked if Ms. Ehrman would be sworn in on June 13, 1984. Mr. Obie stated that the ceremony was scheduled for that date so that the media could be given prior notification. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. IV. APPOINTMENTS: INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (memo distributed) Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to appoint John Ball as a council representative to the Interim Community Development Committee, replacing Dick Hansen. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to June 13, 1984. Respectfully submitted, ~~ (~. . Micheal D. G1 eas n City Manager (Recorded by Thom Strunk) TS :cj/CM8a1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 10