Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/1985 Meeting . . - 1-1 M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber March 13, 1985 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller. The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Welcome to Students from Yaeyama High School in Japan Mayor Obie welcomed students from Yaeyama High School in Japan to the Eugene City Hall. Darcy Marentette, Development Assistance Center Supervisor, said the students are in the United States on a cultural exchange program. They are staying with families of high school students in Eugene. B. City Voters Pamphlet Councilor Holmer suggested the council consider publishing a City voters pam- phlet for future elections. He had outlined some of the considerations in a memo dated March 11, 1985, to other councilors. Ms. Wooten would like cost estimates for a pamphlet before making a decision about it. She prefers inserting Eugene information in the state Voters Pam- phlet. Mr. Holmer replied that the League of Oregon Cities will not advocate a voters pamphlet for a single city or a small group of cities. He also would like cost information. He suggested a work session on the matter. Ms. Ehrman pointed out the cost of the notice for the 6th/7th improvement project was $14,000. Mayor Obie supported the concept of a voters pamphlet. C. Article in Japan Economic Journal Mr. Holmer noted that articles titled "Transformation from Environmental Protectionists to High Tech Promoters" and "Eugene, Ore., Trying to Foster High-Technology Industry" from the Japan Economic Journal should receive attention from many people in Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Ma rch 13, 1985 Page 1 D. Pesticide Right-to-Know Ordinance ~ Ms. Wooten wanted to discuss how the Pesticide Right-to-Know ordinance should be reviewed and discussed again by the council. During the discussion, Ms. Ehrman suggested a work session be scheduled because several councilors had asked for more information. Mr. Miller wondered if a subcommittee should consider the matter before a council work session. Mr. Hansen suggested that Ms. Wooten confer with Mayor Obie who might sense how the process should go. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Ms. Wooten said the article about the Berkeley, California, pesticide right-to-know ordinance was sent to councilors at the request of the 4-J School District. It does not address the same issue as the proposed Eugene ordinance. She indicated she would discuss the topic with Mayor Obie. E. Lane County Community Health and Social Services Ms. Wooten would like to invite Steve Manela of Lane County Community Health and Social Services to speak before the council about his work with the hungry and homeless. He will speak of the work of the coordinated social services agencies. e F. Community Schools Coordinating Committee and River Road/Santa Clara Policy Committee Mr. Miller said Ms. Ehrman will serve on the Community Schools Coordinating Committee. Mr. Miller will serve on the River Road/Santa Clara Policy Commit- tee and Ms. Ehrman will be an alternate for that committee assignment. G. Alley Blockage and Closure Ms. Ehrman previously asked the staff for information about how long trucks can block alleys. Subsequently, a constituent called her because a permit had been issued to close an alley for as long as six months. Apparently, neigh- bors were not consulted. She would like to review the alley closure process at the same time the council reviews alley blockages. H. Merchandise Display on 13th Avenue Ms. Ehrman said Mayor Obie had been concerned about merchandise displays on 13th Avenue. She is concerned about it also and would like a council discus- sion of it scheduled. I. Sidewalk Policies Mr. Hansen wondered when a council review of the City's sidewalk policies will be scheduled. He would like the council to study the process that triggers sidewalk improvements. Mr. Gleason pointed out the council had decided not to review the policy during the discussion of the improvement of Sorrel Way. He will schedule a work session on sidewalk initiation processes. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 2 J. Oregon Highway Plan ~ Mr. Hansen pointed out that the map on page 10 of the Oregon Highway Plan designates important cities on Highway 99 as Corvallis and Cottage Grove. Toledo is mentioned, but Eugene and Springfield are not. He was surprised that Eugene, the statels second largest city, and Springfield, another large city, were not named in the state's highway network. The omission indicates the lack of State support for local highway projects, he said. e Mayor Obie commented that a traveler coming north from San Francisco does not see a sign naming Eugene until the traveler gets to Cottage Grove. He asked the City Manager to prepare a letter for him to sign. K. Eugene Bikeway Maps Ms. Wooten had received many requests for bikeway maps. She was told they would be reprinted in July, but people need them now. She said the sale of the maps was to have paid for the reprinting. Ms. Bascom said alterations were to be made when the maps are reprinted. Mr. Gleason will investigate the matter. L. Metropolitan Policy Committee Mayor Obie appointed Mr. Hansen to serve on the Metropolitan Policy Committee with Ms. Schue. Mayor Obie will serve as the alternate. M. Disabled Youth Jamboree Mayor Obie said councilors will receive a memo requesting an expenditure of about $1,000 to support a Disabled Youth Jamboree. The expenditure will be authorized if Mayor Obie does not receive objections. The Budget Committee will consider the expenditure in a Supplemental Budget. N. Library Read-In on April 16 City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Ann Carter who described the Library Read-In scheduled for April 16. Ms. Carter invited the councilors to parti- cipate. She distributed sign-up sheets. Mr. Gleason said the library circulated about 600,000 books in 1974 and about 1,200,000 books in 1984 with the same number of employees. Research indicates that the City Library has the lowest per-book cost in the United States and, probably, the highest client satisfaction. O. Appointments Mayor Obie said no qualified applicant living within the city limits had been found for the Construction Code Board of Appeals. Consequently, he had e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 3 e nominated a qualified applicant who lives outside the city. He had followed the suggestions of councilors when recommending nominees to the Historic Review Board. He appreciated the commitment of those nominated. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the Mayor's nominations to the following boards and the subcommittee nomina- tion to the Disabled Commission: Construction Code Board of Appeals Eugene Coryell, 28884 Gimple Hill Road. Term to expire 1/1/88. Disabled Commission Elizabeth LePine, 2360 Jeppesen Acres. Term to expire 1/1/88. Historic Review Board Michael Shellenbarger, 1820 Olive Street. Term to expire 1/1/87. (Knowledge of Architecture/Historic Preservation} Joanne McAdam, 528 West 10th Avenue. Term to expire 1/1/87. (Business Community with Interest in Preservation) e Joy Freske, 286 High Street. Term to expire 1/1/87. (Interest/Knowledge of Lane County History) Daniel Sponn, 1274-13 Patterson. Term to expire 1/1/89. (Interest/Background in Landscape Architecture) Mary Feldman, 4665 Larkwood Street. Term to expire 1/1/89. (Rep. Citizens with Interest in Historic Preservation) Nancie Fadeley, 260 Sunset Drive. Term to expire 1/1/89. (Interest/Experience in Public Relations) Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. City Council Minutes of Special Meeting of January 28, 1985, Dinner/Work Session and Regular meeting minutes of February 11, 1985, February 13, 1985, and February 27, 1985 and Legislative Subcommittee minutes of February 27, 1985 (minutes distributed). Answering a question from Ms. Bascom about the minutes of February 27, Mr. Gleason said the break-even point for the athletic club in the Ax Billy Building is 1,225 members. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 4 e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the minutes of January 28, February 11, February 13, and February 27, 1985, and the Legislative Subcommittee minutes of February 27, 1985 as amended. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Corrections were made in the January 30, 1985, minutes at the end of the meet- ing. B. Call for Public Hearing Concerning Street Vacation (City of Eugene/ Hallstrom) (SV 85-1) (map distributed) CB 2814--An ordinance calling a pUblic hearing for April 22, 1985, to consider vacation of an unimproved cul-de-sac bulb located west of West 10th Avenue between Garfield Street and McKinley Street. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous con- sent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. e Council Bill 2814 was read the second time by council bill number only. 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. 19316). III. URBAN SERVICE TRANSITION PROCESS (memo, resolution, background informa- tion distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. He said Ms. Schue had discussed the urban service transition process with officials in Portland, and Mayors Obie and Keller had discussed it with Lane County officials. Resolution No. 3906 establishes a policy board and indicates areas of concern. It does not establish topics to be discussed. The transition area is the area that will be annexed to the city. Efficiencies that can be gained by cooperation are an additional concern. Jim Johnson, Lane County Administrator, reported that the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted similar policies to those in Resolution No. 3906. He said the most important part of the resolution is the recognition by the Lane County Commissioners that cities are the appropriate providers of urban services. Mr. Holmer said the objective of the resolution is worthy, but he thought some of the wording was awkward. Referring to Section 1 which states, liThe City shall acknowledge its role as principal provider of urban services. . . ," Mr. Holmer said the section indicates that Eugene acknowledges a role as provider of urban services throughout the metropolitan area. He said Eugene e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 5 e shares that role with Springfield, at least. Until areas are annexed to one of the cities, Lane County is the principal provider of services. He suggested the section be rewritten to acknowledge Eugene's role as one of the major providers of urban services. e Referring to Section 6 of the resolution which stated, liThe City shall deliver services by means of annexation. . . ,II Mr. Holmer said departments, such as Public Works and Police, deliver services. The words IIby means ofll are awkward. Referring to Section 4 which indicates the necessary staff and financial resources for the urban service transition process will be committed, Mr. Holmer said he would like to know how much the transition process will cost. Mr. Gleason said the wording in Section 1 is from the Metro General Plan. The essence of urban transition is that the county acknowledges it will not supply urban services and the cities fulfill a General Plan obligation to supply urban services. The General Plan and the Glenwood Jurisdictional Study indi- cate which areas Eugene and Springfield will serve. Mr. Gleason suggested Mr. Holmer's concerns about Sections 1 and 6 be acknowledged in policy notes. The cost of the transition processes cannot be determined until the Policy Committee identifies which jurisdictions will provide the services. All the jurisdictions expect the financial transfers to be equitable. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Gleason said Section 4 refers to the cost of the Policy Committee. He recommended the Policy Committee be estab- lished and approve a work plan before a staff is assembled. The staff will not be more than one-and-a-half or two full-time people. Ms. Ehrman attended a conference in Indianapolis, Indiana, which is well known for its urban transition. She supported discussions of it here. Mayor Obie appreciated the outstanding cooperation between Eugene, Spring- field, and Lane County indicated in Resolution 3906. Res. No. 3906--A resolution concerning the Urban Transition Process. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. IV. INDUSTRY PRESENTATION Mr. Rutan introduced John Davis, president of Crosspoint Systems, Inc. Mr. Davis said Crosspoint Systems is an Oregon corporation that engineers, sells, and manufactures computer hardware. It specializes in computer hard- ware for newspapers. Other computer and electronic firms in the area are Covox Co., Percon, Audio Digital, Versa10gic, Zintec, and Able Computer. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 6 - e e Mr. Davis said the Eugene area is a desirable place to live and work; it is relatively inexpensive, the University of Oregon provides amenities, and a citizen has access to political activities. On the other hand, the airport gives a negative impression of the community. Some professional services, such as legal, accounting, advertising, and marketing services, are difficult to obtain because people do not know about medium- and hi-tech industries. Some engineering and technical support must be obtained outside of the area. Sometimes the bad air quality in Eugene affects Mr. Davis and the people with whom he works. Crosspoint Systems recently received venture capital to expand the company from a private source, Mr. Davis said. There seem to be lots of resources here. Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Davis said he does not actively recruit industries for Eugene. Research and development activities do not need access to parts and manufacturing services and, therefore, can locate here easier than some other manufacturers. Mayor Obie thanked Mr. Davis for his presentation and suggested Mr. Davis talk about Eugene to his business acquaintances. V. QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS (memo, background information distri- buted) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Ms. Ehrman who initiated consideration of new court procedures. Ms. Ehrman said she is sensitive to the operation of Municipal Court because she is a defense attorney. The fact that the judge now handles the voir-dire questioning is a major procedural change initiated for efficiency. Ms. Ehrman suggested the procedure be modified to permit defense attorneys to question jurors for a total of 10 or 15 minutes after the judge has finished questioning. In that case, each attorney would be able to question jurors for five or seven minutes regardless of how long the other attorney took. She advocated questioning by the defense attorneys because the attorney and client can listen to the juror at that time. She noted there is no time limit for questioning by defense attorneys in District and Circuit Courts. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Ms. Ehrman said the attorneys who prac- tice in Municipal Court had an opportunity to fill out the questionnaire about the new procedure. Ms. Bascom said most of the attorneys indicated the changes had been good. No councilors voiced objections to Ms. Ehrman's suggestions, so Mayor Obie directed the staff to prepare material for council action. Mr. Gleason had attended a session of the court and recommended that others do so. He said court attendance emphasizes the civil liberties people in this country have. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 7 e e e VI. BANCROFT BOND SALE (memo, resolution distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Warren Wong, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He said $2.235 million in Bancroft Bonds were sold. The issue was rated AA. The difference between a AA rating and an A rating will save the City $40,000 to $50,000 on the issue. The AA rating will save $1.5 to $2 million on the $30 million which is the Cityls share of the Eugene Plan over a 20-year period. The City received six bids for the Bancroft Bond sale, Mr. Wong said. Two bids were from Oregon institutions, one bid was from a California institution, and three bids were from Illinois institutions. The bids ranged from 8.41 percent to 8.03 percent. The low bid was from the First National Bank of Chi cago. Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Wong said the City advertises in newspapers such as The Bond Buyer. The prospectus issued by the City is circulated to underwriters and banks. Res. No. 3907--A resolution accepting a bid for the purchase of City of Eugene General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series K, and directing delivery and sale thereof. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Gleason said the whole city is discussed in a bond prospectus. He sug- gested councilors look at one. Mr. Rutan was impressed with the work of the Mayor, City Manager, and the staff. They identified the need, made a presentation to bond raters, and organized a good sale. It was a major undertaking. VII. ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Rich Weinman of the Eugene Development Department presented the staff report. Referring to a statement in the proposed ordinance stating a position becomes vacant upon lithe incumbent ceasing to be a qualified representative of the interest group he/she was appointed to represent," Mr. Holmer questioned the term "interest group. II He suggested the statement lithe incumbent ceasing to be qualified for the initial appointment" be substituted. Mr. Sercombe said Mr. Holmerls wording would preserve the meaning of the ordinance. He had a copy of the ordinance with that wording if the council wished to use it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 8 - CB 2815--An ordinance concerning the Community Development Committee; repealing Ordinance 19239 and 19272; adding Sections 2.105, 2.107, 2.109, and 2.111 to the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Sections 2.013 and 2.1105 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill as amended by Mr. Holmer 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, 8:0. Mayor Obie commented that the committee was too large and too diverse. Ms. Ehrman also thought the committee was too large. Ms. Bascom said the members probably were busy with the organizations they represent. She recom- mended "at 1arge" members who may not have other duties. Mr. Hansen asked what the most productive size for a committee is. Mr. Gleason said staff support for a decision-making group of five to seven members can be handled easily. An information group can be larger. Communication is better in a small group. Ms. Schue pointed out the Community Development Committee will usually meet only four times a year. It involves a Federal program designed to benefit people with low and medium incomes and the Interim CDC indicated various points of view needed to be represented. In order to have adequate repre- sentation, a larger committee is needed. e Council Bill 2815 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill as amended be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19317). VIII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THREE-YEAR PLAN (memo distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Rich Weinman of the Eugene Development Department presented the staff report. He said the three-year plan is a goal plan which governs the Community Development Block Grants. The plan can be amended at any time. The Interim Community Develop- ment Committee (I-CDC) considered the adopted Community Goals, the Capital Improvement Program, the Six-Point Economic Diversification Plan, and the City Council goals. The Interim CDC held two public hearings. The three- year plan shifts the CDBG focus from neighborhood development to economic development. Mr. Weinman reviewed some of the projects. He pointed out that income from loan programs was included in the proposed three-year plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 9 e Ms. Bascom suggested bicycle connectors be included with pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the description of the CIP activities. Ms. Schue said the permanent CDC will refine the three-year plan on a yearly basis and allocate CIP funds. e Mr. Miller wondered if the funds are assured and how the budget will be reduced if the funds are reduced. Mr. Weinman said the City's grant is budgeted for $1,299,000 for next year. No one knows what Congress will do about the grants. Mr. Weinman did not think the council should be greatly concerned about a reduction now. If a reduction is small, each category may be reduced a little. If a reduction is large, the CDC will probably recom- mend changes to the council. Ms. Ehrman urged the other councilors to approve the three-year plan. She noted funds for the Joint Social Services will be increased. She is on the Joint Social Services Budget Committee. It is hard to allocate the limited funds because they are needed by so many agencies. Ms. Wooten will support the plan, but she said it is important to note it demonstrates a shift away from improvements to the inner city. Revitaliza- tion of the inner city neighborhoods as they lend themselves to new activi- ties in downtown is not complete. There is still much to do in the city's neighborhoods. She is not leaving her commitment to neighborhood improve- ment. She is looking for improvements to the employment problem which is as important to people with low and moderate incomes as the habitat in which they live. She was concerned about the lack of flexibility for individually funded projects. She noted some say the administrative costs of small projects are too great. She thought the City may lose opportunities by eliminating that category completely from the three-year plan. She thought the City should be able to undertake some of those projects when they are needed. Replying to a question from Mr. Obie, Ms. Schue said the council had decided to allocate 10 percent of the Community Development Block Grants for social services in the fall of 1983. At that time, Federal regulations limited the City to 10 percent for social services. The Federal regulations have now increased that limit to 15 percent. The Interim CDC decided to follow the Federal regulations. The direction is that the funds should be used pri- marily for capital improvements to social service agencies because of the Federal regulations. Social Services are a part of economic development. The percentage of funds to be allocated for social service agencies changes because of the needs of other projects. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Ms. Schue said the staff thinks admin- istrative costs can be cut from 20 percent to 16 percent in three years. Mr. Obie appreciated the increased percentage for social services. He said the loan fund is one of the financial aids the City has for recruitment of new businesses and development of existing businesses. He congratulated the Interim CDC on its work. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 10 . e e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the Com- mmunity Development Block Grant Three-Year Plan and submit it to the United States Housing and Urban Development Department. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. IX. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PASSAGE OF COUNTY LIBRARY SERIAL LEVY (resolution distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. He said the serial levy is built into the existing and proposed operating budget. Eugene's share of the levy is $180,000. The levy seems a rational way for the whole community to be part of the library. Mr. Holmer suggested the following underlined words be added to Section 3 of the resolution: 3. The Eugene Public Library requires levy funds to maintain and improve bookmobile service to Eugene neighborhoods and nurs;ng homes, to continue Sunday hours at the Library, to. . . James Meeks, City Librarian, agreed with Mr. Holmer's suggested change. He said the book budget will be improved and library hours will be extended if the levy is passed. However, most of the money will be used to maintain existing services. Passage of the levy is essential to the library. The levy also helps Springfield and provides the only service in the county. Res. No. 3908--A resolution of the Eugene City Council expressing support for the passage of Ballot Measure One at the March 26, 1985, election. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. X. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 30, 1985 Ms. Wooten suggested changes in the third and sixth paragraphs of page 7 of the January 30, 1985, minutes. Bracketed material should be deleted; under- lined material should be added. The third paragraph is: Ms. Wooten said the proposed ordinance would apply to [anyone who sprays] commercial and private sfrayers in certain circumstances. does not just apply to commercia applicators. Section (d) on. . It MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 11 - - - The sixth paragraph is: Ms. Wooten suggested permits be required for [anyone who applies pesticides] commercial and private applicators under certain circum- stances. The permits might expire on December 31 of each year. A permit system. . . Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the January 30, 1985 mi nutes as corrected. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. V~ Michea1 Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:je/1675C MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 1985 Page 12 - M E M 0 RAN DUM ~1arch6, 1985 To: Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, and Lane County Board of Commissioners From: Jim Johnson, Steve Burkett and ~1ike Gleason Subject: Urban Service Transition Process Based on Metropolitan Plan policy direction, the staffs of Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the Lane Council of Governments have been working over the past four months to design a process for addressing urban service transition issues. Elected officials and staffs recently traveled to Portland to meet with city and county representatives to learn more about the urban transition process currently underway in urban rlul tnomah County. This proposal contains: _ 1, A recommended process to resolve urban transition issues in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region (see Attachment A) 2. A list of urban transition services (see Attachment B) 3. Draft resolutions which establish broad policy direction (see Attachment C) ACTION REQUESTED Adopt resolution to initiate the urban ser\'ice transition process. gr"'c 1 s gu t02 - - City of Euqene: Hallstrom (SV 85-1) Tax Lot 707--Assessorls Map 17-04-36-23 Located west of West 10th Avenue between Garfield Street and McKinley Street Requests vacation of an unimproved cul-de-sac bulb. West Broadway Avenue ....... 0' ~I 100' 1 200' 1 bW .... e Area of Request ~ 1-2 . . " ~ I ~-.-.-.-. West 10th Avenue :-.: j j ........J. '-_ C-2 QJ1 706 ~~ QJ ~- .~ .... "- ; s- ( rtl I <.!' / / .......... ~ -. I ................. ~ West 11th Avenue :-.: e +-I QJ QJ s- +-I Vl s- :::::l r----------~---t~}J C-2/SR C-2 ..... ~ e - e RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE URBAN TRANSITION PROCESS The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: 1. The acknowl edged Eugene-Spri ngfi e 1 d Metropo li tan Area General P1 an is based on the premise that the two existing cities are the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development; 2. It is within the City1s interest to participate in resolving the service needs of the presently unincorporated area within the Metropolitan Plan area; 3. The Ci ty recogni zes the integrated nature of the urban area and the essential role of the central city and wishes to enhance the economic well-being of the entire area; 4. The present lack of services constrains the area1s economic development and its residential, commercial and industrial development to the detriment of all the residents of the metropolitan area; 5. The Metropo 1 i tan P1 an requi res that the County di scourage urban development in the unincorporated area. The ,Plan allows the conversion of urbanizable land to urban only thrQugh annexation to a city; 6. A full-range of urban services ~ill ultimately be provided "to urban area~. Those services include sanitary sewers, water service, fire service, police protection, parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, storm drainage facilities, street lighting, and libraries; 7. The Metropolitan determi ned thea'rea Springfield; Plan and the Glenwood jurisdictional of jurisdictional responsibility for have and study Eugene 8. The Metropolitan Plan calls for efforts to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result in a duplication of effort or overlap of service; 9. The City has adopted the Urbanization Report and a set of Urban Transition Policies; 10. There has been a decline in revenues available for the provision of services, causing the need for greater governmental effiCiency; and 11. The City has a desire to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions within the planned urban services boundary to efficiently transfer, increase or consolidate municipal services in an orderly and efficient manner. / 1-Resolution NOW THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eugene, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: e Section 1. The City shall acknowledge its role as principal provider of urban services within the established jurisdictional area of the Metropolitan Area General Plan and plan for the eventual delivery of urban services according to a phased program of improvements meeting the service needs of individual areas. Section 2. Two members of the Ci ty Council sha 11 be appoi nted by the Council to participate on an Urban Service Policy Committee. Section 3. The work of this committee on an urban transition process shall commence by April 1985 and be completed no later than December 31, 1986. Section 4. The City shall commit the necessary staff and financial resources for the urban service transition process including intergovernmental coordination and staffing for the Urban Service Policy Committee. Section 5. The City shall coordinate provision of urban services closely with other jurisdictions to ensure continuing delivery of effective and efficient urban services. Section 6. The City shall deliver services by means of annexation and identify alternative annexation approaches that are demonstrated to be in the best long-term interests of both the City and future service areas. Section 7. The City shall initiate and maintain a public education program _ within the urban serviCes area to inform residents and property owners of the needs, benefits and costs of delivering City services within that area and to encourage annexation. . The foregoing resolution adopted the 13th day of March, 1985. City Recorder plsgut02 e 2-Resolution e e e M E M 0 RAN DUM March 8, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council ~~ Sandra Franklin, Court Administrato~ FROM: RE: Questioning of Prospective Jurors At Council's request, scheduled for the March 13, 1985 council session is a follow-up discussion on the voir-dire procedure in Municipal Court. (Voir-dire is the term used, to describe the questioning of prospective jurors.) Municipal Court introduced an Ordinance before Council on January 9, 1985 which would implement an automated jury selection process. Included in the Ordinance was a change in the procedure for questioning prospective jurors. Although concerns were raised about the changes to the voir-dire procedure, the Ordinance was passed with the stipulation the issue of the voir-dire process be re-visited ata later date. Court changed its juror selection process from a yearly draw system to a monthly "pool" system. Under the monthly "pool" system, jurors serve, on-call for one month versus serving on-call for one year. (Attached to this memo is a brief description of the voir-dire procedures before and after implementation of the automated juror selection process.) The rationale behind the change in the voir-dire procedure was related to the timeliness of trials and the cost of those trials. If the Judge conducts the voir-dire process, the length and cost of the trial can be controlled. At the request of Councilor Ehrman, a packet of information has been prepared to assist you in your review of this issue. Included in the packet are various trial statistics and comments on the new procedure from several individuals. If you have any questions, please call. I can be reached at 687-5407. VOIR-DIRE e Prior to the implementation of the new jury selection process, a formalized voir-dire procedure did not exist. Questioning of prospective jurors was conducted in the following manner: · ~uror cards were pulled once a month . Attorneys reviewed, information written on cards and made their decisions about who would be called in as prospective jurors at that time. This process is defined as peremptory challenges. · At the time of trial, a short voir-dire process was conducted by the judge and/or the attorneys. During this short voir-dire, the only basis for challenging jurors was "for cause." Challenges for cause mean the removal of a potential juror because the juror has an interest in the case, or a bias or prejudice against the defendant or his cause. Subsequent to the implementation of the new jury selection process, a more formalized voir-dire procedure was instituted. Voir-dire is conducted by the Municipal Court Judge. Questioning of prospective jurors is conducted in t'he fo~lowing manner: e . · Questionnaires, which have been completed by the prospective jurors, are given to both defense counsel and prosecution. . Defense counsel and prosecution are allowed two peremptory challenges. · The judge asks both parties if they have any questions they wish to be asked of the prospective jurors. The questions can be written or submitted orally to the judge. This occurs before jurors enter the courtroom. . The judge conducts voir-dire by asking questions of the panel as a whole. If a juror raises his/her hand to a question, the judge asks additional questions of that juror. . When voir-dire is completed, the judge asks defense and prosecution for the first peremptory challenge. Challenges for cause can occur anytime during the voir-dire process. Voir-dire continues until a panel of six jurors is selected. - e - e M E M 0 RAN 0 U M March 6, 1985 TO: City Council FROM: Warren G. Wong, Finance Director SUBJECT: BANCROFT BOND SALE On February 13, 1985, you authorized the sale and issuance of $2,235,000 in General Obligation Bancroft Improvement Bonds, Series "K". Under the Bancroft Bonding Act, property owners benefiting from adjacent public improvements may elect to pay their share of the project's cost through an assessment program over a period up to ten years. As part of the City.s security, the City has first lien rights against the property. In this particular situation, the proceeds of the Bancroft Bond sale will be used to replenish the fund balance in the Warrant Redemption Fund, which initially paid for that portion of the public improvement that benefitted adjacent property owners. On March 13, 1985, the Ciky will accept bids,from financial entities interested in the purchase of the Bancroft Bonds. At your Council meeting of that date, we will announce the financial institution submitting the low bid on this , particular Bancroft Bond sale. The accompanying resolution will be processed at that time to attest to Council IS acceptance of the bid. cc: C. Dallas D. Lilley Attachment - 1 Ell OlWGW e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF CITY OF EUGENE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES K, AND DIRECTING DELIVERY AND SALE THEREOF WHEREAS, on the 13th day of March, 1985, bids were considered during a regular Council meeting for the purchase of $2,235,000 of City of Eugene General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series K, to be dated April l, 1985, and the Council of the City having met in regular session to consider said bids; and WHEREAS, several bids having been received and considered, copies of each of which are attached hereto, and the Council deems it desirable that the responsible bidder offering to purchase said bonds at the lowest net effective rate of interest cost to the City of Eugene be accepted; now; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE C.ITY OF EUGENE, OREGON: Section l. The Council hereby finds and determines that the bid of is the best bid received for the purchase of General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series K, being the one with the lowest - net effective rate of interest being % per annum. That bid is hereby accepted and the bonds shall be sold and delivered to the bidder above named. ATTEST: APPROVED: Recorder Mayor e RESOLUTION NO. e M E M 0 RAN 0 U M March 4, 1985 TO: City Council FROM: Interim Community Development Committee (I-CDC) SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Background The Interim Community Development Committee was appointed in April 1984. One of the primary missions was to develop a recommendation for a committee to advise council on community development and housing program policy issues. On February 20, 1985, the City Council reviewed the committee's recommendation in this regard, and approved the proposal. The attached ordinance implements this recommendation. The ordinance outlines an advisory committee which meets quarterly in order to provide policy guidance and program evaluation. The eleven-member committee shall consist of: e (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) One member of the City Council; One member of the Planning Commission; One member of the Downtown Commission; One citizen residing within a neighborhood eligible for Community Development Block Grant funds; One citizen with a demonstrated knowledge of the needs and problems of low-income residents. - One at-large representative with expertise related to housing issues; One representative from the business community; One member from the Private Industry Council; One citizen who is a tenant or tenant advocate with a demonstrated familiarity with local housing issues; One member from the Eugene Minority Commission, or a citizen who has actively demonstrated interest and expertise in the field of minority relations and anti-discrimination causes; and One member from the Eugene Commission on the Rights of the Disabled, or a citizen who has actively demonstrated interest and expertise in fields related to the special needs and concerns of disabled citizens, to be nominated by the mayor and appointed by the council. e Action Approval of the ordinance establishing the Community Development Committee, and defining its membership and purpose (attached). RW:ky/Fb27 Attachment M E MaR AND U M e March 5, 1985 TO: Eugene City Council FROM: Interim Community Development Committee (I-CDC) SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THREE-YEAR PLAN Background The Interim Community Development Committee was created in April 1983 to "make recommendations to the City Council with respect to the future direction of the City's Community Development and Housing programs and po1icies." This spring, a new three-year goal plan needs to be submitted to the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) area office. This three-year plan identifies program areas and estimated funding allocations. Currently, the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is operating on a temporary, one-year plan. The three-year plan is a guide which can be amended at any time during the three years if there is a need to respond to changes in local priorities. The attached chart outlines each of the categories and the estimated appro- ,priations for the next three years of CDBG funding. This recommendation has the unanimous support of the I-CDC. The I-CDC reviewed the City Council goals, the Six-Point Economic Development and Diversification Program, the'1984 Community Goals and Poli,cies document, and the history of Community Development Block Grants in Eugene. The com- mittee also held two advertised public hearings. The recommendations are all based on direction given by one or more of these sources. - Goal 1: Economic Development Promote economic development and ,diversification through Business Development Loan Fund job creation loans to new or expanding businesses. Funding Strategy: The infusion of capital in the Business Development Loan Fund is vital in the early years. Most loans are repaid within a three-year period. As repayment income from loans increases each year, the need for capital from the block grant is reduced. By allocating 35 percent of the grant ($454,650) to this goal in year one, 30 percent of the grant ($389,700) in year two, and 25 percent in year three ($324,750 when the income stream is increased), over $1.8 million will be available to lend through the three-year period. This takes into consideration projected income from loan repayments as well. All of the policy documents reviewed by I-CDC refer to economic development as a primary policy and program goal for the City. Accordingly, the CDBG Three- Year Plan responds by giving economic development a top priority in funding. ~ In the past year, twelve loans were booked, totaling over $485,000. The Business Development Loan Fund is seeing dramatic increases in activity. e e e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THREE-YEAR PLAN March 5, 1985 Page 2 Goal 2: Housing and Investment Property Redevelopment Assist in upgrading housing conditions for low- and moderate-income residents of the City of Eugene through housing and investment property redevelop- ment. Provide assistance through loans to 10w- and moderate-income homeowners and investor/owners in cases where their tenants are 10w- and moderate-income. Provide services and grants for rehabilitation for the very low income through home repair and maintenance programs. Fundin, Strategy: Provide a first-year allocation of 25 percent '($324, 50) and then allocate 30 percent of the grant, or $396,000 during years two and three. Because of low interest rates and longer terms of rehabilitation loans, loan repayment income to this program is of lesser significance than the Business Development Loan Program. The three-year plan for funding provides $1,225,150 in grant fu~ds and program income (i.e., revenue from repaid loans) for housing and investment property redevelopment activities. During the first year, carryover funds are sufficient to permit the program to operate with a smaller amount of new funds. The housing'and investment property redevelopment programs have been a main- stay of the CDBG work plan during the last ten years. In recent years over 40 percen.t of the block grant funded ,these programs. Eugene's housing stock has been upgraded with noticeable results in the Westside, Whiteaker, and East Skinner Butte neighborhoods. The Six-Point Program identifies the need to /lincrease rehabilitation loan funds for investor/owners." The Community Goa 1 s document call s for po 11 ci es /I supporti ng the preserva ti on of exi sti ng housing. . . /I The existing programs can be classified in four areas: 1) housing rehab- ilitation loans, 2) commercial loans, 3) emergency home repair, and 4) minor maintenance. In each of these programs, 10w- and moderate-income residents of the City of Eugene are beneficiaries. Two new programs, the Rental Rehab- ilitation Program and the Urban Homesteading Program have been funded this year. Both of these programs will rely on Community Development Block Grant funds for administration. The Rental Rehabilitation grant, in particular, does not include adminstrative expenditures. Goal 3: Joint Social Service Fund Projects Provide assistance to 10w- and moderate-income residents with special needs through services and capital improvements for social service agencies. Implement these grants following review and selection by the Joint Social Services Fund Budget Committee. . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THREE-YEAR PLAN March 5, 1985 Page 3 e Funding Strategy: Allocate an equivalent of 15 percent of the block grant each year for the next three years in order to provide a total of $585,580. During years one and three, 15 percent of the grant allocation ($194,850) is recommended for social service funding. During year two, 12 percent of the grant allocation plus the total interest earned on an interim financing construction loan (e.g., the block grant float) for the Downtown Athletic Club ($30,000-50,000) is recommended to address social service needs. The 1983-84 City Council goals directed that Community Development Block Grant . funds be allocated to the Joint Social Services Fund to benefit social service agencies. The Community Goals document IIrecognizes the benefits of the social services network and its integration with the traditional public safety providers." This same document suggests actions ~ lIassist expansion of social service faci1ities". A review of CDBG regulations and experience promotes the use of these social service funds primarily for capital projects to benefit public service agencies. Evidence indicates that there is a cost-saving to the community and/or improvement in services related to the acquisition or upgrading of facilities by social service agencies. However, CDBG funds will be available to fund identified HUD eligible public services on a limited basis. Goal 4: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Provide assistance to 10w- and moderate-income and disabled Eugene residents, and eliminate slums and blighted conditions through Capital Improvement Program projects in CDBG-e1igible target areas. e Funding Strategy: The I-CDC recommends a graduated increase in funds trom tlve percent ($64,950) in year one to ten percent ($129,900) in year two and 14 percent ($181,860) in year three. The current CIP developed by the City identifies few priority projects eligible for CDBG funding. Some projects in the current CIP relate to architec- tural barrier removal. By increasing the amount of funds in year two and year three, time is provided to identify additional eligible and priority projects. The proposed total three-year CDBG funding for CIP projects, including the infusion of reprogrammed funds, is $876,710. Capital improvement programs in Community Development Block Grant target areas are addressed in a variety of planning documents. One of the adopted com- munity goals is lito continue to upgrade accessibility for the disabled of all ages." Additionally, policies indicated in the goal document include lIincrease efforts to preserve, restore, and improve the residential quality of inner-city neighborhoods" and "support the development of undeveloped or underdeveloped land within the City." The Six-Point Program encourages the implementation of e e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THREE-YEAR PLAN March 5, 1985 Page 4 City-wide capital improvement project priorities. The City Council goals include as a priority the implementation of the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan includes' capital improvement program projects which are CDBG-e1igible. The I-CDC recommends that capital projects be identified and prioritized through the City.s CIP planning process in order to receive Community Develop- ment Block Grant funding. Examples of projects which could be included are: the removal of architectural barriers in City-owned facilities, park develop- ment, neighborhood improvement, pedestrian improvements, and neighborhood facilities. One facility which has been identified by neighborhoods is an indoor swimming pool in an inner-city neighborhood. The I-CDC recommends that approximately $500,000 be kept in reserve from unexpended funds available for reprogramming from previous years to assist in funding the swimming pool or another yet-to-be-identified priority capital project in the future. Goal 5: Administration Plan, administer, and implement Community Development Block Grant programs. e FundinH stratety: Allocate 20 percent of the block grant in year one, 1 percen in year two, and 16 percent in year three for planning, implementation, and administration. Total three-year funding is proposed to be $975,000. The successful administration of Community Development Block Grant projects includes assistance from the Planning Department, Finance Division, Public Works Department, and legal counsel, in addition to EOD staff. The COBG regulations allow a maximum of 20 percent of the grant to be spent on admini- strative activities. In previous years, the entire 20 percent has been allocated. The three-year plan proposes a gradual reduction of administrative costs from 20 percent in year one, down to 18 percent in year two, and 16 percent in year three. An assumption is made that as the Community Development Block Grant shifts its focus from many small projects with intense need for administrative service toward a fewer number of larger projects, there will be a greater ability to shift funds to programs due to reduced administration. Ac ti on Approval of the Community Development Block Grant Three-Year Plan for submis- sion to the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). HC59a28 e 2/22/85 INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Community Development Block Grant Three-Year Plan B C D A Current 84-85 Year One 85-86 (Est. Income) Year Two 86-87 (Est. Income) Year Three 87-38 (Est. Income) E Re- Prog. Tota 1 B-E (including Est. Income) Economic Development 25.6%/$330,000 35%/$454,650 ($170,000) 30%/$389,700 ($210,000) 25%/$324,750 ($265,000) $1,814,100 Housing & Investment 29.21/$376,000 251/$324,750 ($36,000) 301/$389,700 ($40,000) 301/$389,700 ($45,000) $1,225,150 Property Redevelopment / / Joint Social Services Fund 12.6%/$162,000 15%/$194,850 12S/$155 ,880 ($40,0001) 15S/$194,850 585,580 Capital Projects Capital Improvement Program 12.61/$162,000 5S/$64,950 10S/$129 ,900 14%/$181.860 500,0002 876.710 ICIP) Target Area Projects Planning, Implementation, 20%/$262,410 20S/$259 ,800 18%/$233,820 16%/$207.840 701,460 Admi nl s tra ti on Estimated Grant Income: 1,292,410 1,299,000 1,299.000 1,299,000 500,000 Estimated Program Income: '.. ' 206.000 290,000 310,000 TOTAL $5,203,000 1 This income is from interest earned from an interim financing loan (float) for the Downtown Athetlic Club construction. Interest is to be dedicated to social services. The Income is estimated to be $30,000-$50,000. 2 These funds are from surpluses on projects and from other unexpended monies. The $500,000 is part of the "float" during year one and two. (. HC18bl. e e e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PASSAGE OF BALLOT MEASURE ONE AT THE MARCH 26, 1985 ELECTION The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: 1. Ballot Measure One proposes a three-year special county library serial levy. 2. Passage of the levy is necessary to maintain and improve services offered by the Eugene Public Library. 3. The Eugene Public Library requires levy funds to maintain bookmobile service to Eugene neighborhoods and nursing homes, to continue Sunday hours at the Library, to provide - new books, collections of special materials such as tapes and 'l~rge-print books, and courier service for fast delivery of inter-library loan requests, and to sponsor programs for children and adults. 4. Levy funds are also necessary to maintain rural bookmobile service to eighteen communities in Lane County, to ensure regular library hours in all communities, and to allow the County-Creswell branch library to remain open. 5. The cost of the levy to the individual property owner, 7~ cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation per year, is small. 6. Defeat of Ballot Measure One would severely curtail the library services which the City now provides to its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, e BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, 1 - Resolution a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: ~ Section 1. Based upon the above findings, the City Council supports the passage of Ballot Measure One as it is necessary to maintain and improve the library services provided to the citizens of the City of Eugene. The foregoing Resolution adopted this day of March, 1985. City Recorder - e 2 - Resolution