HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1985 Meeting (2)
e
4Ia
-
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
January 28, 1985
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Emily Schue, Richard Hansen, Cynthia Wooten, Freeman
Holmer, Debra Ehrman, Ruth Bascom, Jeff Miller, and
Roger Rutan.
The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was
called to order by His Honor Brian B. Obie at 8:10 p.m. The Mayor apolo-
gized because the meeting had not started on time. The Council had begun
interviewing 12 prospective members of a City board or commission at 5 p.m.,
and had just finished the balloting.
Mayor Obie announced that he will be out of town Wednesday, January 30,
1985. He asked President Wooten to chair the Council meeting that day. He
also asked that Council consideration of the Mayor's Task Team on Airline
Service be postponed to the next Wednesday meeting.
I. READING OF BALLOT MEASURE #51 (text distributed)
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced City Recorder Karen Goldman who read
Ballot Measure #51 titled "Stop U.S. Military Aid to Central America.1I
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FY 1985/86 Through 1994/95 Capital Improvement Program (memo,
background information distributed
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Kirk McKinley of the
Planning Department presented the staff report. He said the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) establishes the foundation on which the capital
side of the budget is based. Revenue is projected to be available for the
projects in the first three years of the CIP. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the CIP with some changes. Mr. McKinley reviewed
the changes. The CIP had been reviewed by the Citizen Involvement Committee
and other City and community committees.
Answering a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. McKinley said the Metro-
politan Area Planning Advisory Committee (MAPAC) recommended the City work
with other jurisdictions to develop a metropolitan capital improvement
program. It is a difficult task because each jurisdiction has different
purposes and timeframes for its capital improvement program.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
January 28, 1985
Page 1
e
e
-
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
Jon Silvermoon, 2440 Madison, discussed the Library/Office Space Feasibility
Study and the opening of Willamette Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue.
Last year the expansion and/or relocation of the library and the acquisition
of additional office for City Hall were separate projects. The Council
should consider the expansion of the library at its present site and/or
relocation at another site as an equal possibility. Mr. Silvermoon felt the
present site of the library is its best location.
Mr. Silvermoon was concerned about the impact of opening Willamette Street
on the Lane Transit District (LTD) Transfer Facility and said the decision
to open Willamette Street seemed to indicate the City is backpedaling in its
commitment to alternatives to the automobile. He suggested the social
impact of two-way traffic on Willamette Street from 11th Avenue to 20th
Avenue be included in the proposed study. The City should plan for the
impact on surrounding neighborhoods because "the gut" will probably stretch
from 11th Avenue to 29th Avenue if Willamette street becomes two-way.
Commenting on other projects, Mr. Silvermoon hoped the play structures in
the mall will not be removed; he thinks a stairway on Skinner Butte will
diminish its attractiveness; and he thinks improvements are needed at the
24th and Willamette and 24th and Amazon Parkway intersections.
Roger Neustadter, 1690 McLean, represented the chair of the Downtown Com-
mission and expressed the commission's concern about the separation of the
opening of Willamette Street between 10th and 11th avenues from the con-
verting of Willamette Street to two-way traffic between 11th and 20th
avenues. The two projects should be implemented at the same time. If
Willamette Street is two-way from 10th and 11th and one-way from 11th to
20th, the benefit of the opening will be damaged. He reviewed the provi-
sions for the projects in the CIP and strongly urged that the two projects
be linked in FY 1985-86.
Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
Councilors wished to discuss the CIP in detail at a work session.
Mr. Whitlow said the next budget must be prepared soon, but it can be
changed after Council action on the CIP. Mayor Obie understood the Council
wanted to discuss a change in the capital improvements to reflect the
Council IS interest in such projects as development of the riverfront, the
downtown, and at the airport, as outlined in the Eugene agenda. He asked
that a work session be scheduled on this topic. Mr. Gleason said the staff
will present options to the Council.
Responding to a request from Mayor Obie, Mr. Gleason said the CIP presents
estimated revenues and indicates what capital projects can be accomplished
with those revenues. It directs budget decisions about capital improve-
ments. He emphasized that revenue-sharing funds are the most flexible for
capital projects. About $1 million in revenue-sharing funds will be discre-
tionary this year.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
January 28, 1985
Page 2
e
Ms. Wooten said the CIP is becoming more useful, readable, and efficient.
She hoped the neighborhood organizations are given an opportunity to comment
on it.
B. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Partnership (memo attached)
Mr. Gleason introduced the item.
M~or Obie opened the public hearing.
Tom Hoyt, 460 Palomino Drive, commended the Council for its courage and
wisdom when it took a bold step and approved the Eugene-Springfield Metro-
politan Partnership. People from outside the area do not see several juris-
dictions. They see a metropolitan community. The Council courageously
accepted a pledge from the private sector to meet the debt assumed by the
Partnership from the Oregon-Pacific Economic Development Corporation.
People can contribute to economic development now with the knowledge that
the jurisdictions are working together.
Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
C. Street Name Change from Atlantic Avenue to Pacific Avenue and
Pacific Avenue to Atlantic Avenue (SC 84-2) (memo, map, background
information distributed
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Bill French of the
Planning Department was present to answer questions.
~ Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
There being no testimony, M~or Obie closed the public hearing.
CB 2804--An ordinance renaming Atlantic Avenue to Pacific
Avenue and Pacific Avenue to Atlantic Avenue.
Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be
read the second time by council bill number only, with
unanimous consent of the council and that enactment be con-
sidered at this time.
Answering a question from Councilor Erhman, Mr. French said the Public Works
Department will change street signs and L-COG will update the computer
maps. Mr. Gleason said the City usually does not encourage or support
street name changes because they are difficult to implement. This request
was unusually easy to implement.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
Council Bill 2804 was read the second time by council bill number only.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
January 28, 1985
Page 3
e
e
e
Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, 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. 19306).
Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to January 30, 1985.
Respectfully submitted,
~~p
Mic~~easo~~L
Ci ty Manager
(Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick)
BLR:je/1632C
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
Janua ry 28, 1985
Page 4
INITIATIVE I'ETITICN
City of Eugene, Oregon
e
CP..liF PETITIONERS: MaIlI;el Pachero
490 East 34th St.
Ellgene, Oregon
Sue C-ordon
1136 East 20th St.
Eugene, Oregon
Punl 1'7ooddell
215 E. 2nd, ~3
Eugene, Oregon
B/U.Wl' TITLE
CAPrIOO: STOP U.S. MIUTARY AID TO CENTRAL M-lERICA
OOESTIQN: SHALL THE PEOPLE OF EIJGEliE CAIL FOR A HALT
'ro U. s. r-1ILlTARY AID TO CENTRAL M1EIUCA?
PURPOSE: THE PEOPLE OF EUiENE CALL FOR A HALT TO l-lILITARY
AID 'ro CENI'RAL M1ERICA. THE CI'IY COUNCIL
\'lILL DE RBJUIRED TO SEND A COP'f OF THE MFASURE
TO FEDERAL OFFICIALS.
THE rQSURE
\~, ext:rene poverty, gross econanic disparity and poli tical r~
pression are the tnle root causes of unrest aIT'OI1g the peoples of
Central Amarica, and
e
\'niEE'.EAS, U,s. military assistance to the governrrents of El Salvador,
Guatemala, ,:md Honduras, and covert military aid to the counter-
revolutionary forces fighting to overthrcM the governrrent of Nicaragua,
has increased and continues to increase dralratically and,
h'HEREAS, goverrarents supported 'rrj U.S. military assistance practice
institutionalized hurran rights violations directed to..ard their own
populations, inclOOing death squads, torture, rape and deprivation and,
l"lHEREAS, U.S. financing of counter-revolutionary.forces fighting.to
overt:lu't:lW the governrrent of Nicaragua, in violation of U.S. and ll'1ter-
national law increases the danger of regionalized warfare \mle it
\.U1dE-.rmines ~onal efforts t:a..Jard diplatatic solutions, and
1-mEREAS, CCI1tinued mill tary aid to the region has contributed to the
eaJIlCllIic, political and social disruptions of those countries, forcing
hundreds of thousands of refugees to flee their native lands and seek
refuge in Mexico am the United States, and
WHEREAS, with. the severe eccnanic difficulties facing the united States
am deep cuts in darestic ~V'::lLo.ftS, the traneY spent on military aid
to Central Arrerica could be spent supporting jobs, health and education
projects in this country, and
~, we recognize that only longstanding solutions to the problems
Iot1i.ch face Central .Arrerica are to be found in peaceful diplatatic
alternatives; and
~, 'lliEREFORE, BE IT ORDAlNID BY THE PEOPLE OF THE ern OF E:t.X;ENE
AS ~,S:
SH:TION 1. 'l11e people of Eugene call for:
(al A halt to the. use of federal taxes for overt and
oovert military assistance to Central AIrerica.
(b) A halt to the stationing of U.S. military personnel
in the region, and
&::l A halt to all l'econcmic support funds" directed
prlmarlly toward military purposes in the region.
e
SEX:TION 2. The City Council is instructed to transmit a a::JfJY of
this ordinanCe to the President of the tJriited States,
the Sec:retary of State, the Secretary of Dafense,
the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the
Senate, the Chainnan of the Senate Foreign Relations
Camti ttee, and to each 1T'eI1'ber of the Oregon Congressional
Delegation. '!be City is also instructed to publicize
this ordinance to the people and press of Oregon.
SEX:TIrn 3. '!his ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.
e
MEMORANDUM
January 28, 1985
To: Mayor and Ci ty Council
From: Planning Department
.
Subject: FY 1985/86 Through 1994/95 Capital Improvement Program
On January 28 you will be taking testimony and considering the recommendation
of the Planning Commission on the Draft FY 1985/86 through 1994/95 Capital
Improvement Program. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Draft CIP on December 4, and on January 7, . recommended the program with
comments to you for consideration and adoption.
As in previ ous years, the document has four sections. The fi rst section
conta ins introductory text and tables; the second section 1 i sts the fi rst
three years of proposed projects withi n projected avail ab 1 e revenues; the
third section lists projects for all ten years by responsible or lead
depa rtment; and the fourth section 1 i sts proj ects for a 11 ten years by
Planning District. Projects in the first three fiscal years are listed by year
and by funding source. Projects for the last seven years are not necessarily
tied to available funding; they are needs identified in various plans, by the
staff, and neighborhoods. Also, only the projects in the first year are
4It prioritized.
A few changes have been incorporated in the document in response to concerns
identified during the review process for last year's document: -
1) The addition of a paragraph in the introduction explaining the
differences between the capital and operating sides of the budget;
2) Table 1 (Public Assets) lists dollars in estimated replacement value.
Before, there was some confusion as to what this table meant;
3) The inflation rate has been set at five percent to reflect a more
reasonable inflation value (last year's rate was eight percent and it was
fifteen percent before that).
4) Section Two has been reformatted with dividers between each fiscal
year. This section also includes project descriptions;
5) Section Two now has unabbreviated fund names. Sections Three and Four
also have the fund name written out and the costs for each project
allocated by proposed funding sources.
e
In addition to Planning Commission review, staff discussed the CIP with the
Neighborhood Leaders on October 15; the Citizen Involvement Committee on
November 15; the Chamber of Commerce Revenue and Taxation Subcommi ttee on
November 19; the Joint Committee on Economic Diversification on November 20;
the Metropo 1 i tan Area Pl anni ng Advi sory Commi ttee (MAPAC) on November 28,
December 10 (Transportation Subcommittee), and December 12; and the Downtown
Commission on December 11. ~-~-
-/
~ Materials included in your packet are:
--Correspondence from:
--MAPAC,
--The Downtown Commission,
--Randall Hledick;
.
--Attachment A: An Attainment Report which highlights the status of
projects recommended in the first year (FY 1984/85) of last year's CIP;
--Attachment B: Special notes on major projects identified in the public
review as ,needing further clarification;
--The minutes from the December 4 Planning Commission public hearing;
--The minutes and staff notes from the January 7 Planning Commission
meeting.
Recommendations
Th Planning Commission's recommendation to you is as follows:
e
1) Expand the third paragraph of the Introduction to explain that, with
the exception of the General Capital Projects Fund (Federal Revenue
Sharing -- Fund 312), the remainder of the funds are, generally,
dedicated only to capital projects and cannot be used to fund operations.
2) Subtract the estimated replacement value of city-owned land from
Graph 1. Graph 1 is intended to reflect the need to maintain city assets;
therefore, land which is not particularly in need of a continuous
upgrading program to prevent deterioration should not be included in the
base.
3) Add to Footnote 1 in Table 2 a further explanation of reappropriation
of funds and why the actual amount expended is generally less than the
dollars appropriated.
4) Update the land use maps in Section 4 to reflect current land uses
(i.e., the Eugene Centre is still indicated as being vacant).
5) Based on the adopted Downtown Plan, drop the project under Eugene
Development calling for studying opening Willamette Street between 8th
and 10th avenues.
6) Consider adding the implementation of converting Willamette Street to
two-way traffic between 11th and 20th avenues after study and in
conjunction with the opening of Willamette Street between 10th and 11th
avenues.
e
7) Increase the funding for the first year ~f,the
Projects item to $100,000 of Tax All~~,~,~Jon-mOnies.
~r
~
2
Business Development
-----;~
~ ,/~
----- ~
-----
4,~~
/
.
e
e
e
8) Before proceeding with the Beltline Extension project, conduct a
study of the transportation needs of the Willow Creek area. In addition,
the Beltline Extension project should be included in the Metro Plan and
the Metropolitan Transportation Plan before implementation.
Further Recommendations for the Next CIP Update
In preparfng the next annual CIP Update, the Planning Commission in responding
to concerns raised in the review process, suggested reorganizing the document
to provide two Appendix sections.
The first section would consist of expanded project descriptions which would
include more detailed information on all of the projects (this could be
similar to Attachment B). Examples of information provided in the expanded
descriptions would include:
--roots/origin of each project; e.g., what plan or policy identifies the
project as a need;
--greater detail on the limits and specifics of the project; e.g., how
many lanes, descriptions of studies, when proposed, etc.
--reasons why the project limits or title may have changed, and what the
previous limits and title were.
Other testimony and comments on the Draft CIP have related to the need for an
Appendix which would summarize the status of projects contained in the,first
year of the previous CIP, specifically, the relation of the first year
proj ects to the City Budget. It is recommended that such a report (an
attainment report) be included as a second Appendix section in future CIPs:
This section could resemble Attachment A.
The final recommendation for the next CIP Update is to place more emphasis at
the staff level on developing operating cost information which would be
included in the draft document.
plkmcit3
Attached under separate cover:
Attachment A: Attainment Report
Attachment B: Special Project Notes
Minutes from December 4 Planning Commission public hearing
Minutes and staff notes from January 7 Planning Commission meeting
Letter from Jim Hale, Chair of MAPAC
Memorandum from the Downtown Commission
Letter from Randall Hledick
3
e
e
-
M E M 0 RAN DUM
January 24, 1985
TO: Mike Gleason, City Manager
FROM: Douglas Evel~siness Assistance Team
SUBJECT: Eugene-Springfield Metro Partnership
The City Council asked for a public hearing on the City's participation
in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Partnership. This hearing is an
opportunity for the public to speak about that participation.
The Partnership has public and private participation with its major
partners being the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, the Chambers of
Commerce in Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County. The former Oregon-
Pacific Economic Development Corporation has merged with the Partnership.
The governing bOdy of the Partnership will be a 44 member Board of Directors
with representation from each of the organizational partners, at-large
representation, and some regional representation. The Board will be in
place by March 1.
The primary focus of the Partnership will be m~rketing and recruitment
of business to the Eugene-Springfield area. Staff working with the,
Partnership will be assigned from the partners. There will be no
freestanding staff. That staff will develop and conduct an intensive,
proactive recruitment program, as directed by the Board, aimed at
marketing Eugene-Springfield as a good place to do business.
.,
As stated earlier, we expect the Board to be in place by March 1 and the
program to be fully operational by April 1.
DE/irs
e
e
e
M E M 0 RAN DUM
January 24, 1985
TO: Mayor and Eugene City Council
FROM: .Planning Department
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE (SC 84-2)
On December 10, 1984, the Eugene Planning Commission considered a request
for a Street Name Change for Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Avenue. The
proposal is to reverse these two names: Atlantic Avenue to Pacific Avenue
and Pacific Avenue to Atlantic Avenue.
These streets are within an industrial subdivision located on the west side
of Danebo Avenue between the Coos Bay Branch of the Southern Pacific Rail-
road and West 11th Avenue. The applicant views the renaming as an aid in
promoting development of the subdivision (see applicants statement).
The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve
the request.
Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 1984
Memo to Planning Commission from Planning Dept.
November 30, 1984
Vicinity Map
Applicants Statement
plcambf
e
Atlantic Avenue/Pacific Avenue (SC 84-2)
Tax Lots 1503, 1504, 1506, 1507, 1508,
and 1509--Assessor's Map 17-04-28-0 0
Located west on Danebo Avenue, south of
Southern Pacific
The request involves renaming
(reversing) of Atlantic Avenue to
Pacific Avenue and Pacific Avenue to
At1 anti c Avenue .
HK:db/0006p
'-
-
......
southern Pacific Railroad
,200' 400'
e 1500
1502
1505 Q)
c::
10
0
Roya 1 Ave.
.
S.P.R.R. '0
0:::
SITE ~ Q)
c::
.....
a ....J
e .a
Q) +->
c:: r-
~ Q)
Cl co
W. 11 th. Ave.
Vicinity No scale
Areas
--