Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1985 Meeting (2) M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber October 14, 1985 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Ruth Bascom. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by President Cynthia Wooten in the absence of His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. SUBMIT BALLOTS FOR INTERVIEWEES FOR PLANNING AND DOWNTOWN COMMISSION OPENINGS (background information distributed) Councilor Wooten postponed consideration of interviewees for the Planning and Downtown Commissions. II. PUBLIC FORUM - Ms. Wooten said the Public Forum is an opportunity for people to speak to the council about issues which the council is not scheduled to consider. No one wished to address the councilors. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Cable Television Franchise Revisions (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Randy Kolb of the Information Services Division gave the staff report. He said the Metropolitan Cable Television Commission had been conducting a triannual review of the cable television franchise agreement with Group W Cable for about a year. The review was complicated because the Telecommunications Act of 1984 took away rate regulation authority from local governments and because this was the first triannua1 review since Group W Cable purchased Teleprompter, the previous cable provider in the community. Mr. Kolb said the new franchise indicates that basic service includes 21 chan- nels, increases the franchise fee from three percent to five percent of gross revenues, deregulates rates and programming, and indicates the facilities for cablecasting non-commercial programming will be operated and financed locally. He said the sort of services expected on the 21 channels are listed in the franchise. The two percent fee increase will be used to finance non- e commercial programming and a telecommunications studb. Additional minor changes were made to simplify matters for Group W Ca le and to hold down costs MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 1 for subscribers. Those changes included provisions for the sale of cable . services in monthly blocks, an increase in the density of a development before cable service must be provided, permission for Group W to sell some customer lists, and permission for Group W to charge subscribers for willful damage to equipment. Mr. Ko1b said the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council have approved the new franchise. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing. John Breeden, 366 East 40th, represented the Home Builders Association of Lane County and his firm, Breeden Bros., Inc. He read and then submitted a memo from John R. Bennett, Executive Officer of the Home Builders. Mr. Bennett opposed the change which would require Group W to provide cable service when 25 houses per quarter mile have been constructed. Previously, cable service was required when 10 houses were built per quarter mile. He said Eugene has been using the availability of reasonably priced lots with a full range of services to recruit new employers. The proposed change jeopardizes one of the basic services. Mr. Breeden said his firm paid $7,575 for conduits for cable TV in Somerset 8. Twenty homes have been planned, sold, or built in Somerset 8. Eight homes are completed in a quarter mile. The change which would require 25 homes in a quarter mile would be a disservice to the residents, he said. The original agreement should be honored. - Mr. Breeden said he and the Home Builders Association had just heard of the change, which is a major policy one, last Friday. He thought time should be provided for meaningful input from affected people. He said the absence of cable TV makes it more difficult to sell new homes. There being no more requests to testify, Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. Mr. Kolb said the negotiations were complex. The change in density was made to keep the basic monthly cost down for existing customers. Extending lines is expensive. When there are only a few customers on a new line, a greater cost has to be passed on to existing customers. He said cable TV is not a real utility. It is entertainment. Most of the developers have agreements with Group W about extending service which are more flexible than the fran- chise language. When answering a question from Councilor Rutan, Mr. Kolb introduced Brian Sullivan, General Manager of Group W. He said the agreement with Breeden Bros., Inc., will cover cable extension in Somerset 8. He said Group W has encouraged existing lot owners in Somerset 8 to work together. Cable exten- sion for a group of lots is cheaper than for just one lot. He said most developments within the Urban Services Boundary are covered by agreements between Group Wand the developer. The 25 homes per Quarter mile is an average; it does not mean the dwelling units have to be contiguous. It would apply to new developments not covered by existing agreements. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 2 Answering questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Sullivan said the change in density e would not apply to Somerset 8. He said the prepayment for conduits is regula- ted in another section of the franchise. Agreements with developers about service in Planned Unit Developments indicate that service will be extended when a specific number of dwelling units are constructed regardless of where they are built or when a specific number of dwelling units in each phase are constructed. Mr. Ko1b said an appeal could be made to the Metropolitan Cable Television Commission, but the commission probably would not decide against the requirement in the franchise for 25 homes per quarter mile. Responding to questions from Councilor Miller, Mr. Sullivan said the existing average density in the community is 110 homes per mile. The necessity to extend service to every 10 homes per quarter mile (40 per mile) dilutes the average density. He said a change in the franchise would mean the entire tri- annual review would have to begin again. Councilor Hansen represents the City Council on the Metropolitan Cable Televi- sion Commission. He said the negotiations involved much "give and take." The Telecommunications Act of 1984 indicates that Group W must operate on a busi- ness basis. It will survive because of the number of customers it has and the income they generate. He said developers and Group W representatives will want as many people as possible to have a cable hook-up. Keith Martin was the MCTC attorney in the negotiations and represented the agencies well, Mr. Hansen said. He did not think the changes will be a problem for deve- 1 opers. The biggest danger will be that people will not want cable because it is too costly or because they have "dishes.1I He noted the franchise will be e reviewed again in about two-and-a-half years. Mr. Hansen said the franchise agreement did not have to be changed. If it had not been changed, the franchise fee would be three percent and there probably would not be funds for public access facilities. The Metropolitan Cable Tele- vision Commission was committed to public access programming. The increase in the franchise fee will provide about $210,000 each year which the community will decide how to spend. This year $150,000 will fund the public access channels and $60,000 will fund a telecommunications study. He noted that Lane County Commissioner Rust and Springfield City Councilor Fred Simmons supported the new franchise. He hoped the council would support the franchise. Councilor Holmer said 25 homes a quarter mile means each lot will have 45 feet of frontage for each dwelling unit. He was nervous about approving the agree- ment. He realized Group W will want to extend services to as many homes as possible, but he also realized Mr. Breeden's concerns. Mr. Rutan suggested that Mr. Breeden be permitted to comment again. Ms. Wooten agreed to the suggestion. Mr. Breeden said a customer was told it will take 3,490 feet of cable costing $6,000 to extend service to Somerset 8. The customer was told each of 10 customers would have to pay $500 for the extension. Mr. Breeden reiterated that $7,575 was paid for the conduits. Mr. Breeden said Group W required that seven of the eight homes in Somerset 7 have hookups before it would provide the cable. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 3 Ms. Wooten noted that the rest of the franchise agreement seemed to be accept- e able. She wondered if an administrative rule could provide flexibility in the density requirement. Mr. Hansen said the Metropolitan Cable Television Com- mission does not have rule-making power. Mr. Kolb and Mr. Sercombe said a change in the franchise would necessitate new public hearings, reconsideration by Springfield and Lane County, and new readings of the ordinance by Eugene. Mr. Hansen said a decision about extending service must be based on econo- mics. He has found that Group W wants new customers. He said the Home Build- ers could have commented on the franchise when Springfield and Lane County reviewed it. Mr. Gleason suggested the staff and representatives of the Home Builders Asso- ciation and Group W present a Memorandum of Understanding to the council about the effect of the change on home builders. Mr. Sercombe said the ordinance that created the Metropolitan Cable Television Commission could be amended to give the commission rule-making powers. Mr. Gleason said the council would consider the second reading of Council Bill 2849. The council had given the ordinance its first reading on September 9, 1985. CB 2849--An ordinance granting to Group W Cable, Inc., a non-exclusive franchise for the operation of a cable communications system; and amending Ordinances No. 18284 and 18936. e Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Mr. Holmer was reluctant to approve the franchise without a Memorandum of Understanding. Ms. Wooten responded that the councilors had expressed their feel ings. She thought they would be taken seriously. She said, "It is a matter of good fai th whi ch I am will ing to take at this point." Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19359). B. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located Southwest of Spring Boulevard from County F-2 Forest Land District to City RA Suburban Residential District (Tallackson/Lesher) (A/Z 85-2) (memo, ~ background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department gave the staff report. He said the annexation and rezon- ing request involved a 3.8-acre parcel owned by Shirley Tallackson and a 1.4- acre parcel owned by Stanley Lesher. He said concern was expressed at the Planning Commission hearing about the future realignment of Spring Boulevard which will connect the existing street to 40th Avenue. The appl i cants indicated the connection will be made when the properties are developed. Mr. Croteau said Dave Williams represented Mr. and Mrs. Michael Sobol before e the Planning Commission, and communications about the request were directed to him. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 4 No conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts were declared. Councilor Ehrman e said she knows the Sobo1s, but she has not spoken to them about the annexa- tion/rezoning request. Answering questions from Mr. Miller and Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Croteau said the existing Spring Boulevard is north of Tax Lots 2800 and 6500. The right- of-way between Tax Lots 2800 and 6500 is unimproved. An existing roadway meanders through Tax Lot 2800. Any right-of-way that is not needed for the connection of Spring Boulevard will be vacated to the property owners. He identified the location of the Sobol property. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Croteau said the staff will want the street connection to be made with the least grade change and the least impact on existing vegetation. The area is subject to regulations in the South Hills Study. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing. Jim Saul, 111 West 7th, represented the applicants. He said the purchaser of Tax Lot 2800 wants to solve the right-of-way issue. The purchaser commis- sioned a survey and directed that the connection of Spring Boulevard be through Tax Lot 2800. The purchaser has indicated the connection should not affect other properties. Michael Sobol, 3962 Spring Boulevard, said he does not oppose the annexation. He is concerned about a temporary easement across his property. He has been - told it will be vacated when Spring Boulevard is connected, but he has not received plans for the connection. He said residents of all the surrounding properties should know how the proposed connection of Spring Boulevard will affect their properties, about possible prescriptive rights over the existing right-of-way across Tax Lot 2800, and about the impact of tree-cutting on Tax Lots 2800 and 6500. He said he has been told a barrier will be placed across the current Spring Boulevard which will force vehicles onto the easement across his property if the annexation is denied. Mr. Sobol said the temporary easement should be vacated and plans for the connection of Spring Boulevard should be available to the City and affected land owners before the annexation is approved. Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. Responding to the testimony, Mr. Croteau noted the City cannot do anything about the connection of Spring Boulevard until Tax Lot 2800 is annexed. He said Public Works Director Christine Andersen indicated at the Planning Com- mission public hearing that the easement on the Sobol property will not be used for the connection of Spring Boulevard. The connection will be through Tax Lot 2800. Abutting property owners will be notified of the public review of the proposed connection. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen about consequences if problems develop about the street connection, Mr. Croteau said Tax Lots 2800 and 6500 cannot be developed with the current alignment of Spring Boulevard. All parties involv- e ed need to get the street realigned and adequate protections exist. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 5 Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Sercombe said the council's recom- e mendation for annexation to the Boundary Commission cannot be conditioned. Mr. Croteau said the addition of the site review suffix to a zoning district offers an opportunity to include conditions to a rezoning request. He reiter- ated that Spring Boulevard cannot be realigned until Tax Lots 2800 and 6500 are annexed. He said Shirley Tallackson and Stanley Lesher are the owners of record of the lots. He understood that Tax Lot 2800 may be sold. Mr. Miller said he understood the Sobols' concern. He wondered why the tem- porary easement across their property cannot be vacated before the annexation. Mr. Croteau said the City does not vacate a right-of-way until another right-of- way has been dedicated. Right-of-way through Tax Lot 2800 will be required for the realignment of Spring Boulevard. Whatever right-of-way is not needed will be vacated. Part of the existing right-of-way near 40th Avenue probably will be needed. Some of it will not be needed. Commenting on the request, Ms. Ehrman said she favored annexation and a condi- tioned rezoning. She said new owners of Tax Lot 2800 might want a different alignment than is now expected. Mr. Croteau suggested a site review suffix to the RA zoning district. He said the suffix should contain one concern indicating Spring Boulevard should be realigned before Tax Lot 2800 is developed. Mr. Croteau suggested Mr. Saul be permitted an opportunity for rebuttal about the proposed site review suffix. Mr. Saul said information about development was provided to Mr. Williams, who - had represented the Sobols. Mr. Saul said John Murphy intends to buy Tax Lot 2800 and build a single-family dwelling on it. Mr. Murphy wants to get the realignment resolved before deciding on the site of his house. Mr. Lesher does not have development plans at this time. County regulations will have to be followed if the properties are not annexed. County regulations indicate the roads should be appropriate for the prOduction of timber. Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Sercombe said the county zoning remains on a property if a rezoning request is not approved when property is annexed. Mr. Miller suggested the annexation and rezoning be approved if an agreement can be made that the Sobols will have redress if the council IS intent is not followed. Mr. Sercombe said such an agreement is not possible. Mr. Rutan said the City has policies and procedures such as those in the South Hills Study to protect the Sobols. Addition of the site review suffix will add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that will stay with the property. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Saul said a site review suffix is not necessary, but, if the council wants it, he suggested it be applied to Tax Lot 2800 only. He said the owners will have to go through the site review process whenever a permit is requested. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 6 Ms. Schue and Mr. Hansen said they were persuaded by Mr. Rutan's statement. - Res. No. 3944--A resolution authorizing annexation for property located southwest of Spring Boulevard and rezoning from County F-2 Forest Land District to City RA Suburban Residential District. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Final Order No. A/Z 85-2--A final order rezoning property located southwest of Spring Boulevard from County F-2 Forest Land District to City RA Suburban Residential Dis- trict. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the Final Order No. A/Z 85-2 rezoning property located southwest of Spring Boulevard from County F-2 Forest Land District to City RA Suburban Residential District. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to amend the motion to add the site review suffix to the RA Suburban Residential District for Tax Lot 2800 subject to the following concern: The site review should be for the sole purpose of resolving the - future alignment of Spring Boulevard through Tax Lot 2800 con- necting to the existing Spring Boulevard to the north with the intent to protect the adjacant properties and minimize the disturbance of vegetation. Ms. Ehrman said limiting the site review to one concern will not burden the property. Mr. Hansen said he would oppose the amendment because the site review suffix will remain on the property. Answering a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Croteau said the site review process was changed two years ago to permit a specific concern. When the concern has been met, site review procedures will not be required. The suffix could be eliminated in the future when the concern has been met. The amendment carried 5:2. Ms. Wooten, Ms. Schue, Mr. Miller, Ms. Ehrman, and Mr. Holmer voted aye. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Rutan voted nay. The amended motion carried unanimously, 7:0. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 7 C. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located North of West 11th - Avenue, east of Greenhill Road, from Lane County ICU Industrial Commercial Urbanizing District to 1-1 Special Light Industrial District and C-2 General Commercial District (Greenhill Technology Park) (A/Z 85-1) (memo, map, background information distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department gave the staff report. He said the annexation/rezoning request is for 140 acres. The request is for rezoning to the 1-1 Special Light Industrial District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation and rezoning to 1-2 Light/Medium Industrial District because the Metro Plan designation for the property is 1-2. Mr. Croteau said the applicant has requested a Metro Plan amendment which would change the designa- tion to the Special Light Industrial District. If the amendment is approved, the City will initiate a rezoning request for the 1-1 district. Mr. Croteau said three sightings of three rare or endangered plants have been made on a part of the property since the Planning Commission hearing. The area may be designated as a natural resource area in the future. A process for dealing with future natural resources areas has been recommended for approval during the mid-period review of the Metro Plan. Mr. Croteau recom- mended that the council approve the annexation and rezoning request and attach the site review suffix to the nine acres on which the rare plants have been seen. He said the site review suffix will permit the majority of property to be ready for development with a full range of City services and will protect the plants. e Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Croteau said the staff did not do a feasibility study concerning a technology park in the area. The property is adjacent to a Special Light Industrial Site designated in the Metro Plan. Responding to questions from Councilor Schue and Mr. Miller, Planning Director Susan BroQy said the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) approved the amend- ment request for an 1-1 Special Light Industrial District designation in the Metro Plan for the property. Ms. Brody said the property is part of the industrial land inventory because it is designated 1-2 in the Metro Plan. Mr. Gleason noted the property is inside the urban growth boundary. No conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts were declared. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing. Don Norris, 1984 Kimberly, represented the owners of 94 percent of the land in the request. He said a new sewer line serves the property. Other services are available. He said that last August representatives of the Metropolitan Partnership told him that a foreign investor was looking for 150 acres of industrial land for high-tech use. Only two Special Light Industrial sites in the metropolitan area had enough land and only one site had a marketing plan. He emphasized the need for high-tech sites of more than 100 acres. He reviewed sections of the Fantas report, the Metro Plan, and the Six-Point Program that indicate such sites are needed. He said there are no physical barriers between this property and the Special Light Industrial Site designat- ed in the Metro Plan. He did not object to the site review suffix to protect - the rare plants. M1NUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 8 Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. e Mr. Holmer did not favor the addition of the site review suffix. He said too much protection is sometimes given to endangered species. Res. No. 3945--A resolution authorizing annexation of property north of West 11th Avenue, east of Greenhill Road, to the Eugene and the Lane County Metro- politan Wastewater Service District and rezoning from Lane County ICU Industrial-Commercial Urban- izing District and County C-2 Commercial District to City 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District, I-2/SR Light-Medium Industrial District with Site Review procedures, and C-2 General Commercial District. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Final Order No. A/Z 85-1--A final order rezoning property located north of West 11th Avenue, east of Greenhill Road, from Lane County ICU Industrial-Commercial Urbanizing District and County C-2 Commercial District to City 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District, e I-2/SR Light-Medium Industrial Dis- trict with Site Review procedures, and C-2 General Commercial District. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt Final Order No. A/Z 85-1. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1 with Ms. Wooten, Mr. Hansen, Ms. Schue, Mr. Miller, Mr. Rutan, and Ms. Ehrman voting aye and Mr. Holmer voting nay. IV. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS/LEVYING ASSESSMENTS City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. A. Adopt Findings (84-117) (memo, findings distributed) Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the findings concerning improvements to Park Place Subdivision. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. B. Levy Assessments City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 9 CB 2857--An ordinance reassessing parcels of real property e within Eugene's Park Place Subdivision for sanitary sewer; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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 thi s time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 2850 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. 19360}. V. ORDINANCE CONCERNING COMPROMISE OF DEBT (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Finance Director Warren Wong gave the staff report. He said the proposed ordinance clarified and authorized the City Manager to compromise any debt owed the City. It also relieved the council of any personal liability in any claims that are settled. The ordinance resulted from the issue concerning interest on unsegregated tax which has settled with Lane County. He said the City received $103,000 from e the County. CB 2856--An ordinance authorizing the City Finance Officer to modify, compromise, or cancel claims due the City; adding Section 2.582 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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, 7:0. Council Bill 2856 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all council- ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19361). VI. ORDINANCE CONCERNING CITY INCOME TAX {memo, ordinance, resolution distributed} City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Finance Director Warren Wong gave the staff report. He sai d the ordinance reflects the four- tenths of one percent personal income tax rate the council recommended be e presented to the voters. It includes an exclusion for people with incomes of MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 10 $7,500 or less and a system of credits for people with incomes of $7,501 to e $10,000. It also includes a dedication of revenue to capital improvement projects and the debt service for the airport and library expansion. Motor- ized and computer equipment have been added to the capital improvement pro- jects. Mr. Wong distributed a page titled "Taxable Income Under City of Eugene Income Tax Proposal II to the council. He recommended the council not take official action on the ordinance until after the vote on November 5, 1985. Ms. Schue suggested the Library Board consider a recommendation to issue library cards to non-residents who pay the city income tax. No councilors objected to the suggestion. Ms. Wooten asked Ms. Schue or Mr. Gleason to convey the suggestion to the Library Board. Mr. Wong answered questions from several of the councilors about the proposed income tax. He said a resident of Springfield who works for International Kings Table in Springfield would not pay a Eugene income tax even though the company headquarters is in Eugene. A subcontractor who works throughout the state and has a business address in Eugene would pay a city income tax on all income if the business is not incorporated. If the business is incorporated, the subcontractor would pay a city income on his or her salary from the cor- porati on. Lee Lashway, a City attorney, said a person who lives outside Eugene and works for Lane Community College in downtown Eugene would pay city income tax on that salary. e Referring to Section 3.612 of the ordinance, Mr. Hansen said the capital improvements that will be financed with the income tax should be specified. Responding to the comment, Mr. Wong distributed a page containing an alterna- tive for Section 3.612 which included the definition of capital projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Gleason added that the ultimate control of the revenue is in the budget process. Mr. Hansen said the definition of capital projects in the CIP was not specific enough. He would like details in the ordinance about how the income tax will be used for the airport and library expansions as well as the CIP. However, the alternative for Section 3.612 was better than the first wording. Answering a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Gleason said items which cost less than $5,000 could be financed by the income tax if they are part of a new project. Referring to Section 3.604 (4), Mr. Holmer suggested the word "may" be changed to "shall" so that Eugene woul d have agreements wi th other ci ti es that woul d provide reciprocal exemptions. Mr. Hansen responded to Mr. Holmer's suggestion by saying that the Eugene ordinance indicates that income taxes paid to other cities are deductible. Other cities that have income taxes should provide for deductions. He woul d let each city protect its own citizens. He said people who work in Eugene should pay the income tax because one of the goals of the proposal is to provide an opportunity for people who live outside Eugene to help pay for e things they use in the city. He opposed reciprocal exemptions and would like to delete Section 3.604 (4). MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 11 , , Ms. Wooten noted that most councilors had commented on the income tax proposal . when it was approved. However, Mr. Holmer had been out of town. Therefore, she suggested he have an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr. Holmer said he disagreed with three elements of the income tax proposal. They were: 1) the reduction to one-quarter of one percent when the airport and library expansion are paid for, 2) the exemptions and credits for people with low incomes, and 3) the dedication of the revenue to capital projects. He opposed the reduction in the rate because the revenue will be needed, he opposed the exemption and credits because they do not permit everyone to pay the tax, and he opposed the dedication because the revenue from the income tax should be part of the general revenue stream so that future councils can control its use. Ms. Wooten said she was not too concerned about Section 3.612 of the ordinance because she thought the city income tax would provide some relief for the general fund. She suggested the staff work with Mr. Hansen to find some wording that would be acceptable to everyone. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, e (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:ss/1888C - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1985 Page 12 " .- e M E M 0 RAN DUM October 18, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council ./'./ FROM: Dave Reinhard~ Transportation Engineer - Department of Public Works SUBJECT: ODOT SIX-YEAR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM As you know, the Oregon Department of Transportation has begun the process of updating their Six-Year Highway Improvement Program (HIP). State staff and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) will be developing a draft program this fall and winter. The draft is expected to be released for public review in early 1986. The OTC will hold public hearings next spring, and adopt a new HIP by June, for fiscal years 1987 through 1992. . Governor's Modernization Proqram CGMPl e The GMP will be a new component of the Six-Year HIP, comprising about $200 million in additional highway construction funded by the state's 2 cent gas tax increase. As we reported to the Council at your work session of June 24, this additional funding is an extemely important ingredient in our efforts to obtain a larger share of state highway dollars for this area. At that meeting we discussed with you the need to focus on a few high-priority projects, namely the 6th-7th corridor, Highway 99 North, and Franklin Blvd/Riverfront Access improvements. In July we accompanied Mayor Obie to Roseburg and Portland, and Councilor Hansen to Salem to present testimony at OTC hearings on proposed criteria for the Modernization Program. In addition to oral testimony and a brief slide presentation we delivered the attached five-page letter. We used the opportun- ity not only to comment on the state's proposed criteria but also to describe our own high-priority projects. To the previous list we added a fifth project; the southerly extension of Beltline Road, from West 11th to 18th Avenue at Willow Creek. We felt this project would be a good candidate for GMP funding, which does allow these state dollars to be spent on County and City facilities. Need for a Metro Area Proqram Our discussions with the public works staff of Springfield and Lane County, and with our legislative consultant Grattan Kerans, .has led us to the conclu- sion that a "united front" is required for this metropolitan area to receive a more equitable portion of state highway resources. There are two basic - reasons for this conclusion. " ...;:. First, it has become apparent that our competition is essentially with Portland. The July 17 letter from Mayor Obie includes a chart showing how the e current HIP construction funds are allocated. In contrast with the Portland metro area (Region 1) which received $414 million, the Eugene-Springfield area received about $9.4 million, most of which is for one project on Interstate 5. Second, the July OTC hearing in Portland which we attended provided a useful illustration of how effective a "united front" can be. Various speakers representing diverse political jurisdictions and interests tended to support a common list of projects. In addition, a number of state legislators from that area joined in supporting those projects. We see our own "united front" as having the following key ingredients: (1) Support by the two City Councils and the Board of Commissioners for a joint project list. (2) Ongoing efforts by City and County staff to keep ODOT staff informed about our priorities and the merits of each project. (3) Appropriately timed support from our local state legislators, in the form of contact with key ODOT staff and OTC members, and testimony at public hearings on the HIP. (4.) Ongoi ng i nvo 1 vement by Counc il ors, Commi ss ioners and the two Mayors in supporting the metro-area project list, including appearances at HIP hearings, informal contact with OTC members, It etc. Metro Area Project List Following is the proposed metro-area list of projects for inclusion in the 1987-92 HIP. Each jurisdiction's projects are shown in priority order. The desired construction year is also shown. (We are developing a packet of project descriptions and will distribute that to you shortly). EUGENE PROJECTS Prioritv Project Location Construction Year 1 6th-7th Widening, Washington to Garfield 1986 2 6th-7th Extension, West 11th to Garfield 1990 3 Highway 99 North, Garfield to Beltline 1989 SPRINGFIELD PROJECTS 1 Main/South A Streets, Willamette River to 19th Street 1986 2 Hwy 126/42nd Street Interchange 1986 3 Hwy 126/Mohawk Blvd Interchange \ 1986 4 Eugene-Springfield Hwy (Hwy 126) Overlay and Median ODOT to Barrier (ODOT project) determine - 5 Safety Lighting at Hwy 126 Interchanges 1987 6 Landscaping at Hwy 126 Interchanges 1987 < ~ e LANE COUNTY PROJECTS 1 Beltline Bridge 1987 2 Delta/Beltline Interchange 1989 3 Chambers Connector 1987 JOINT AGENCY PROJECT 1 Harlow Road Overcrossing Widening 1986 (if constructed with 1-5 improvements) 1988 otherwise There are two changes to Eugene's project list compared to the list in our July 17 letter. (1) The Franklin Blvd/Riverfront Access improvements are no longer included. Tax increment financing is now in place as a means of paying for those improvements; discussions are also under way with Lane County on the potential for County economic development funds to be used for the "front-end" costs, which would be paid back with tax increment revenue. (2) The Beltline Extension has been dropped in favor of the Chambers Connector.as a GMP-funded local project. We feel that project would best meet the State's criteria for this new funding' source, including substantial cost-sharing by local govern- e ment, since the County will have paid for about 70 percent of the entire project cost already with their own funds. If $3 million in State funds are obtained for the final phase of Chambers Connector, that same amount of County road funds will be available for use on other local projects. For example, we would seek County assistance on the Beltline Extension project. Reauested Action We recommend the Council pass a motion supporting the concept of a unified metro-area highway program, and adopting the list of projects as shown. e .- ~.., . , ,- EUGEJ.~E, OREGON 97401 . CIlY UBRAR Y . 100 W. 13TH AVE. . - October 21, 1985 TO: ~~n, City Manager FROM: Carol Hildebrand, Asst. City Librarian SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUGENE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL At a special meeting held at 4:00 Friday, October 18, the Library Board approved the following motion: "Moved, that the Board recommend to the City Council that our library services be opened free of charge to all who would pay the City of Eugene income tax." With five of the seven members of the Board present, the vote on the motion was 4-l. The Board discussed how and when this policy would be implemented if adopted, but left these questions to be decided after the election. e . , e