Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1992 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council/Eugene Downtown Commission McNutt Room--City Hall February 17, 1992 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman, Randy MacDonald, Ruth Bascom, Kaye Robinette, Paul Nicholson. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sue Prichard, Chair; John Brown, Penny Hopkins, Julie Aspinwall-Lamberts, Cordy Jensen, Peter Bartel, Jonathan Stafford, Larry Hedberg. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Richard Larsen. The adjourned meeting of February 12, 1992, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Mayor Jeff Miller. I. WORK SESSION: DOWNTOWN COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM FOR 1992 e Sue Prichard, chair of the Downtown Commission, reviewed the commission's 1992 work program. She identified the commission's top work priorities as the west end of the mall and Olive Street, improvements to public facilities in the downtown, and development of publicly owned sites. Ms. Prichard requested council approval for the program. The council discussed the commission's recommendations for opening Olive Street. Referring to the commission's request that it serve as the design committee for that project, Mr. McDonald asked if the design considered by voters in May would be the basis for the project. Ms. Prichard said yes. The commission is seeking an economic and speedy resolution to the problem and does not seek to redesign the street. Referring to the commission's recommendation against the construction of underground parking in association with the library, Ms. Ehrman asked for further clarification. Ms. Prichard said that the commission supported a separate parking structure to be located at the west end of the mall to serve other downtown users. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Prichard said that recruiting tenants for spaces on the west end was not part of the commission's work program. That work was done by Downtown Eugene, Inc. The council discussed the commission's proposal to install public rest rooms in downtown. Mr. Miller questioned whether the provision of publiC rest e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 1 e e e rooms in the library would meet the need perceived by the commission. Ms. Aspinwall-lamberts pointed out that the City had indicated its intention to replace the rest rooms removed on West Broadway. Ms. Ehrman suggested that rest rooms in the library might not be sufficient to serve downtown users. Mr. Boles indicated his support for an acquisition component for the commission's public art program, saying that the City had missed an opportunity the previous year to purchase and site art on the mall. Ms. Bascom maintained that there was support for underground parking at the library on the part of voters. She questioned the need for public rest rooms as a top priority in the work program due to the complaints made in past years regarding the condition of the rest rooms and those who used them. In response, Ms. Hopkins said that shoppers downtown complain about a lack of rest rooms. Ms. Aspinwall-lamberts recalled the commitment made by the City when changes were made to West Broadway to replace the rest rooms. Mr. Bartel indicated his opposition to the council's decision to keep the proposed library within the scope of the Eugene Decisions process.... He said that those he had spoken to had believed that they had voted for a new library, and those individuals had indicated their dissatisfaction with a lack of action on the part of the City Council. Mr. Bartel pointed out that the public had supported the library with a vote and maintained that the project should go forward. He said delaying the project affected the City's credi bil ity. Mr. Bartel continued, saying that the erosion in downtown had occurred over 20 years, and he believed it would take as long to repair. He said that in spite of policies to support the core, those policies had not resulted in a strong downtown. If the vacancies that exist on the mall continue, the vacuum created by those vacancies would be filled by less desirable tenants. Mr. Bartel said that the library must be brought out of the Eugene Decisions process and real attention paid to downtown. There are opportunities available to the council for improving downtown, and Mr. Bartel suggested that one opportunity would be to give the Downtown Commission more responsibility for the core. In response to Mr. Bartel's comments, Mr. Brown said that while he supported the library, he was opposed to moving it out of the Eugene Decisions process. He pointed out that his neighborhood had asked the council without success to reopen its fire station. Mr. Brown said there were many such "sacred cows." Observing that the Eugene Decisions process will lead to a change in the manner in which the City does business and that the greater downtown area is doing well, Mr. McDonald asked the commission for its reaction to the return of mall management to the private sector. Responding to Mr. Bartel's suggestion regarding the library, Mr. Boles suggested that, since Olive Street would probably be opened with a vote, the commission submit questions to the community regarding alternative revenue sources for library funding in conjunction with that vote. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 2 ~ Mr. Nicholson suggested that the council not avoid City involvement in downtown, but rather establish the boundaries of the City's involvement and the boundaries of private involvement. Mr. Miller said that the City does not have a design for the library. The question asked of voters was whether they wished to have the library at the Sears site. A preliminary design had been developed for that purpose. The council had envisioned a public design process for the actual library design. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Gleason estimated that it would require about eight months to complete a public design for the library. Mr. Green indicated his sympathy for Mr. Bartel's position, but said that the council had committed itself to the Eugene Decisions process. Ms. Ehrman agreed with Mr. Bartel that many people were frustrated about the lack of progress for the library. She said that the public improvements proposed by the commission would generate attention for downtown and reinforce the City's commitment in the community's mind. Responding to Mr. Miller's suggestion to provide rest rooms in conjunction with the library, Ms. Ehrman pointed out that the construction of the library was some time off and the rest rooms were needed immediately. Mr. Rutan indicated his support for the commission's work program. He urged the council to be clear in its direction to the commission. e Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Lew Bowers of the Planning and Development Department said that the council would have to make a decision by March 19 to include the opening of the street on the May 19 ballot. In order for the City to produce a voters' pamphlet, the council must take action by February 21. Mr. Boles pointed out that nothing precluded the City from conducting an advisory election at any point in time. Mr. Nicholson asked about the relationship of the street opening to access issues downtown. Chris Andersen, Director of Public Works, responded that Olive Street was not a major traffic carrier, and staff believed that the impact of opening the street would be minor. Mr. Bartel pointed out that the design had spoken to the issues of alternate modes and had been developed in conjunction with Public Works Department staff. Mr. Nicholson responded that the design had been done in conjunction with a plan to open Willamette Street as well, which might affect its relationship to other streets. Mr. McDonald moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to direct the Downtown Commission to return to the council within 30 days with a project design for the opening of Olive Street. Ms. Andersen said that the City currently has a conceptual, rather than a detailed, design for the street reopening. Survey data and information about e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 3 e utilities must be collected. She estimated that it would take two months to prepare a design. Mr. Gleason said due to the possibility of conflict with the Eugene Celebration, the council would need to make a decision within six weeks. Mr. McDonald withdrew his motion. Ms. Bascom withdrew her second. Mr. McDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to direct the Eugene Downtown Commission to undertake the project design and conceptual development for the proposed Olive Street opening in consultation with staff and return to the council with all possible haste with a proposed design. Pointing out that there was a design in place, Mr. Boles said that it was his expectation that the commission would adjust the design to reflect that it was once part of a larger design. He added that the design should be a quality design or the City Council should not proceed with the project. Responding to a concern raised by Mr. Nicholson regarding the location of structured parking in the west end of the mall, Mr. Miller observed that the City Council had discussed structured parking on Charnel ton Street but had never discussed the specific location of a structure on Olive Street. Ms. Ehrman added that she did not not think the location of structured parking would affect the street design if Olive Street were a two-way street. e The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Bartel said that he did not think that any downtown issues would be resolved unless both Olive and Willamette streets are opened to traffic. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Robinette, to refer the opening of Olive Street to the voters of Eugene. Mr. Boles asked if Ms. Ehrman's motion was for an advisory vote or a binding vote. He suggested that in conjunction with the advisory vote, the council gauge the community's support for various funding mechanisms to build and operate the library. Ms. Ehrman clarified her motion as calling for an advisory vote. Mr. Rutan urged the council to oppose the motion. He said that it was time for the council to show leadership in downtown issues. Mr. Rutan said that the council should make a decision to open Olive Street without going to the voters. Mr. Nicholson said he agreed in part with Mr. Rutan's view. However, he indicated his concern about making a decision to go forward with the plan without a conceptual design and without knowing the results of discussions now occurring between proponents and opponents of the original plan. Mr. Nicholson said that with that information, he would be more inclined to e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 4 e e e support the reopening as part of the City's general plans for the downtown and not inconsistent with maintaining a pedestrian mall. Mr. Robinette anticipated that Mr. Nicholson's concerns would be addressed by the time a decision is made. He said that he would have voted to open Willamette Street without a vote and would like to open Olive Street without a vote. However, he said that the question was, did the council want to make a point or open the street? If it wanted to open the street, it needed to have a vote. Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. Robinette's remarks. He said that the community would believe that the council had not met the spirit of the charter amendment and would respond to that issue rather than to the issues of downtown. Ms. Ehrman said that a vote on Olive Street would pave the way for the vote to come regarding the library. She said no time would be gained by avoiding a vote. The council discussed the issue of the voters pamphlet. Mr. Boles recalled that the council requested the City Attorney's Office to investigate a situation that could bring up a home rule issue that could be resolved in the City's favor. The City Attorney had indicated that the council could most appropriately do so by considering a ballot question that was not a "yes" or "no" question. Ms. Bascom said that she supported referring the issue of the reopening to the voters but did not support the voter's pamphlet. Mr. McDonald said that the council should consider the home rule issue at a later time. He said while he was sympathetic to Mr. Rutan's remarks, there was more at stake than the reopening of the street. The council's credibility and the credibility of the Eugene Decisions process was also at stake. Mr. Nicholson expressed his concern regarding the advisory nature of a vote. He said that the council should avoid such half measures as they would not be satisfactory to either side concerned about the issue. Mr. Green indicated his opposition to the motion. He did not believe that the public would make a distinction between Olive Street and Willamette Street. Mr. Green said that the council should make a decision about the street and proceed with the reopening. The motion passed, 5:3 (Mr. Rutan, Mr. Green, and Mr. Nicholson voting no). Mr. McDonald moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to not issue a voter's pamphlet in conjunction with the referral of the opening of Olive Street to the voters. The motion passed, 6:2 (Ms. Ehrman and Mr. Nicholson voting in opposition). MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 5 ~ The commission and council briefly discussed the issue of floor area ratios (FARs) as a criteria for development proposals. Mr. Brown said that the commission would like more flexibility to respond to developers' proposals. The commission believes that FARs create rigidity on the part of the City. Ms. Aspinwall-Lamberts said that the commission will address the issue in its revision of the Downtown Plan. Ms. Prichard said that the commission would like to see more downtown development, and the criteria has precluded some developments. The commission would like to review the criteria to ensure consistency with the market. e Ms. Ehrman encouraged the commission to consider a multi-purpose structure when constructing rest rooms downtown. Mr. McDonald said he hoped the commission would consider downtown in light of the greater downtown area, while not forgetting the mall. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Ms. Prichard said that the commission was considering how to use tax increment funds to retain and support business downtown as well as attract new businesses. However, she reiterated that the commission's focus was not on direct recruiting. Mr. Brown and Ms. Prichard indicated their support for privatization of certain services now delivered by the City in the downtown. Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Brown said that the commission had begun the process of examining budget items that could be contracted. Mr. Gleason briefly reviewed the time line for the proposed street reopening design. Ms. Prichard thanked the council for giving the commission the direction that led to the proposed work program. She said that it had been very helpful for the commission to consider issues from a policy perspective. Ms. Prichard concluded by saying she anticipated that the work program would lead to a highly productive year. The meeting recessed at 7:20 p.m. and resumed at 7:30 p.m. II. STRATEGY ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATION Tony Mounts of the Administrative Services Department reviewed the analysis packages developed by the council and described the level of analysis anticipated by staff for each proposed strategy. Referring to the council's desire for community participation in the strategy analysis, Mr. Boles suggested that the council refer to its advisory groups some of the items staff proposed to defer or drop from analysis. He noted that several issues had been referred to the Building Construction Advisory Committee (BCAC). He reported that the Council Committee on Eugene Decisions (CCED) had directed staff to solicit citizens for analysis participation from e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 6 e e e the build-your-own-budget (BOB) respondents. Mr. Boles said that throughout the recommendations, staff had recommended deferring analysis on suggestions regarding information systems. He believed that recommendation was a mistake due to the process goal of sustainability. Mr. Boles proposed that the council convene a discussion group around information systems in a manner similar to the discussion group regarding volunteer services. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to refer the aspects of the strategies that refer to information systems to a discussion group that would make a recommendation to the council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Boles said he expected staff to return in 60 days with an analysis that would resemble the analysis that will occur around the topic of volunteers. Mr. Boles referred to the staff's proposal to defer work on B(3} and (4) on page 5 of the recommendations, and suggested that the council refer the analysis to the human service providers. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Boles said that if the providers did not want to participate, the analysis would not take place. The council accepted Mr. Boles' suggestion. Responding to a question from Mr. Mounts, Mr. Boles indicated his willingness to work with staff to clarify the scope of the analysis. Mr. Rutan requested that analysis of item A(2} on page 6 regarding the impact of the elimination of the spay-neuter clinic proceed. Mr. Miller asked that analysis also proceed regarding A(l} (current enforcement practices compared to field enforcement only for animal control). The council agreed to the requests. Referring to the recommendation to proceed with examination of ways to reduce energy costs, Mr. Boles asked that the analysis incorporate consideration of Eugene Water & Electric Board's steam facilities. Mr. Boles and Mr. McDonald supported retention of the analysis for Community Centers reflected in B on page 14 of the staff recommendations. Mr. Boles suggested that the issue be referred to Sacred Heart and the school districts. Mr. McDonald added that it should also be referred to Steve Manela of Lane County. Mr. McDonald and Mr. Boles indicated their willingness to work to clarify the intent of the proposal. Mr. Green said that, due to the proposed action of School District 4J to charge Kidsports for the use of its facilities, he supported analysis of A(S} on page 17 (analysis of cost of consolidation of fields and recreational facilities with school districts). He indicated his Willingness to work with staff on the issue. The council accepted Mr. Green's suggestion. Mr. Gleason cautioned the council that referring issues to other groups without clear parameters would result in false expectations on the part of those groups. Mr. Boles agreed, and said that Mr. Gleason's concern could be resolved by carefully crafting the charge to the groups. He pointed out that MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 7 . many of the issues referred were functions managed by the Intergovernmental Relations Division (IGR). He advised Mr. Gleason to have IGR staff examine each charge for specificity before it is forwarded to any group. Mr. Miller supported review by the CCED as well. The council agreed. The council agreed to a general discussion of the use of community corrections program similar to that proposed for information systems and volunteerism. Ms. Ehrman agreed to assist staff in that effort. Referring to the analysis planned for the proposal to reduce General Fund support for the Riverside Parks/Owens Rose Garden, Mr. Boles said the analysis should include the costs associated with a lower maintenance level. The council requested a legal opinion regarding the City's ability to move to an "owner stipulation" model for business licenses. Mr. Boles asked that the analysis of the City's legal ability to establish a differential tax structure on property proceed. The council indicated its support for Mr. Boles' proposal. At the request of Mr. McDonald, the council agreed to direct staff to return with a high-level description of the effect of reducing General Fund support by privatizing plan checking and building permit functions or relinquishing those services to the State or County. The council agreed to drop analysis of the proposal to decrease the frequency ~ of refinement plan updates. Mr. Boles asked that the proposal to maintain the current service level for community planning be referred to Chris Ramey of the University of Oregon. He indicated his willingness to work with staff to craft that referral. The council agreed to Mr. Boles' request. Mr. Boles asked that the analysis of the City's ability to recover program fees for Business Assistance Services partition nonprofit and for-profit entities. The council agreed to refer the strategy described in C-3 on page 43 ("Define cultural tourism and describe the cost of developing a marketing program targeted to that market") to the Cultural Arts Commission. Responding to a suggestion from Mr. Boles to combine analysis of library strategy B-1, Cultural Services strategy C-3, and Hult Center strategy B-2 due to the reference to the use of a restaurant tax as a funding source, Mr. Mounts pointed out that analysis of a restaurant tax was planned and would incorporate consideration of those strategies. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 8 ~ III. CROSS-ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES e Mr. Boles said that in examination of the cross-organizational issues, the Council Committee on Eugene Decisions had agreed that there were certain issues that the City Manager could address right away, with the goal of reducing the process target by about ten percent, or $800,000. He characterized the process as a "jump start" in addressing intraorganizational efficiencies. He said that Mr. Gleason had proposed the concept at a recent CCED meeting and the committee had agreed to forward the suggestion with its approval to the full council. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Robinette clarified that CCED, rather than Mr. Gleason, had identified the targeted amount. Responding to a question from Mr. McDonald, Mr. Gleason said that the focus of his proposal would be on minor service reductions and sustainable changes in service systems. He said that the process would parallel other decisions made in the process. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson regarding the level of council oversight for the decisions made by the manager, Mr. Gleason said that he would return to the council and report on the actions taken in the process. Mr. Boles clarified that the decision before the council was whether it supported an approach by the manager that examines internal sustainable service reductions. Ms. Bascom asked Mr. Gleason if he was attempting to address the issue raised by citizens of "fat" in the City budget. Mr. Gleason said that he would address wages and fringe benefits within the confines of council policy, management efficiencies such as consolidations and reorganizations, productivity improvements, technological applications, examination of City leases and contracts, reductions in management structure, reductions in regulations and processes, and reduction of City overhead costs. Responding to request for clarification from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Boles said that the council needed to agree if it wished to convey the authority to the manager to realize the goal, and how those decisions would be processed. The council agreed to authorize City Manager Mike Gleason to realize ten percent of the Eugene Decisions process target of $8 million from the existing operational budget. Mr. McDonald indicated his opposition to the proposal. The council discussed the reporting relationship of the manager to the council in the process proposed by Mr. Gleason. Mr. Gleason proposed that CCED review the proposals he developed on behalf of the council. The council indicated its acceptance of Mr. Gleason's suggestion. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 9 e e e Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gleason to examine the cross-organizational strategies suggested by the council to determine a way that they can be processed in the context of Eugene Decisions. Mr. Mounts described how several of the issues could be processed, and added that several of the strategies could be assigned to the City Manager in light of the proposal accepted by the council. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Ms. Bellamy reminded the council that there was an annual process for the review of boards and commissions. That review had not occurred on a large scale for five years. She suggested that the council retain that review as part of its regular work plan. Mr. Boles pointed out that the council did not have a policy in place regarding the creation of boards and commissions, their lifespans, and the functions of those groups. Ms. Bellamy noted that, in general, the council officers and the Mayor have initiated such policies for the council's review. Mr. Miller suggested that the council officers accept the charge of making recommendations regarding such policies within the context of the annual review. IV. OTHER ISSUES Mr. Wong raised the issue of recent Federal changes in rules governing bond issuance. He said that the City had begun to lay interceptor trunk lines in River Road/Santa Clara in 1987-88. That construction had been funded in part by internal City funds from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Mr. Wong said that laterals are being connected to private properties at the current time. When the benefiting property owners are assessed, the assessment is for both the lateral lines and a share of the interceptors. The City planned to sell bonds to pay for construction loans on the current construction activity. Those bonds will reimburse the Sewer Fund. Mr. Wong said that unless the City takes action prior to March 2, 1992, it will not be able to reimburse the Sewer Fund under the new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, meaning that current ratepayers will have subsidized the system by several million dollars. Mr. Wong explained that the IRS had issued regulations in spring 1991 that had been the subject of considerable complaint. Consequently, the IRS had withdrawn and revised the regulations and reissued them again in January 1992 without changing the implementation date of March 2, 1992. Mr. Wong said that in order for the Sewer Fund to be reimbursed, the City must borrow money outside its own system through the sale of bonds. Staff will be seeking council authorization to borrow from the banks in order to repay its sewer funds in September. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong estimated the increase in assessments to benefiting property owners at $2 or $3 each year. He said that the extra cost would reflect the interest costs between March 2 and time reimbursement occurs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 10 - e e Mr. Boles commended the rating handbook produced by staff while noting that it did not contain the Eugene Decisions goal statement. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. 1i:~~: Ml. eilf*f,leaso~ City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) mncc 021792-530 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1992 Page 11