Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/30/1992 Meeting --- --------~ e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall September 30, 1992 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green {12:30 p.m.}, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette. ABSENT: Randy MacDonald. The adjourned meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER A. Lolliooos Club Ms. Ehrman referred to the number of letters the council had received regard- ing the opening of Lollipops, and suggested that the council respond to the public's concerns with a letter to the editor of The ReQister-Guard. The council agreed to her suggestion. e B. Contaminated Soil Mr. Boles discussed a situation in his ward in which gasoline-contaminated soil was moved to a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood for aeration. Mr. Boles asked the council for authorization for staff to prepare an analysis for the use of contingency funds to address the costs of removing the soil. Mr. Miller questioned whether the use of contingency funds for the soil removal would create a precedent. Mr. Boles said that changes to the permit- ting process and City ordinances would avoid the situation in the future as well as the need to expend public funds. Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Mr. Gleason said that the City is receiving complaints about similar situations throughout the community. He said that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has a gasoline tank remova 1 program called II LUST" (Leaky Underground Storage Tank). The program permits the aeration of contaminated soil in the open, a process that takes about two years. Mr. Boles said that public complaints occur when soil aeration occurs near residential areas. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 1 11 :30 a.m. e The council directed staff to develop an analysis for the use of contingency funds. Mr. Boles said that the next step for the council to consider was change to the City Code to ensure that soil aeration does not occur in areas that affect residents. Mr. Robinette questioned how much local control existed over DEQ processes. Mr. Gleason believed that the City had home rule authority to regulate how disposal occurs. He said that he did not believe that the City had the financial resources or knowledge to do so at the present time. Mr. Robinette suggested that the ordinance could be designed to include a right-of-action provision. Mr. Gleason said that development of the ordinance would be a major work item and he was unsure of its position in the queue of council priorities. Mr. Boles said that if the City were able to affect change at the permit level, it should do so; if ordinance changes were required, he believed the council should pursue those changes. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Doug Eveleth, Manager of Building and Permit Services, said that the City has a tank removal permitting process. He said that the City could regulate soil disposal through that process. However, Mr. Eveleth said that the issue the council needed to consider was how staff should address complaint calls from the public in light of the City's lack of financial and staff resources and the direction from Eugene e Decisions regarding land use enforcement. Mr. Boles suggested a two-step process: 1) address the issue immediately through the permit process, while recognizing that there are potential enforcement costs; and 2) consider the suggestion of Mr. Robinette, inclusion of a right-of-action provision in the code. Ms. Bascom asked Mr. Boles what would occur if the City failed to take action. Mr. Boles suggested that there were long-term consequences for a failure to address soil aeration through the permit process and ordinance revisions. The rate of tank removal does not appear to have peaked. He anticipated many more permit applications for tank removal. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller regarded the possibility of a coordi- nated solution with lane County, Mr. Gleason responded it might be possible to select a single centralized site for all such soil disposal in the county, pointing out that after three years the aeration process is complete and the soil is usable topsoil once more. However, securing agreements between jurisdictions and securing DEQ approval for the solution would take time and cost money. Mr. Rutan suggested that the City respond to the issue at hand and avoid establishing a precedent. He said that staff could provide information at a e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 2 11:30 a.m. e later time outlining the scope of the problem, suggested solution, and probable costs. Ms. Ehrman suggested the possibility of processing the issue through the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Mr. Gleason briefly discussed staff capacity to address such issues, as well as regular work items and the implementation of the work plan resulting from Eugene Decisions, and cautioned the council about the decreased capacity that has resulted from downsizing. Mr. Gleason said that such issues as the one before the council would continue to arise. It would be necessary to divert staff resources to address the issue and other work items will be affected. Mr. Robinette suggested that staff contact DEQ for information on how many tanks remain to be removed inside the city limits for a sense of the scope of the problem. II. STATE BALLOT MEASURES 1. 2. AND 7 The council reviewed a series of recommendations regarding State ballot measures from the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. State Ballot Measure 1 Ms. Bascom spoke in favor of Ballot Measure 1 (authorization of up to e $250,000,000 in general obligation bonds supporting the development and maintenance of State camping and recreation sites). She believed that increased fees would pay for those bonds, but said that the ballot measure sent the message that the State's parks were in trouble and needed attention. Mr. Robinette said that the measure was referred to the voters by the Legisla- ture with no associated revenue stream. He said he would not be able to support such a measure. Mr. Boles concurred, noting that Mr. Rutan also agreed and Mr. MacDonald represented the single vote in support of the measure on the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Mr. Rutan stressed the need to carefully select which State ballot measures to support or oppose, the need for those measures to be relevant to the City, and the importance of taking a unanimous position as a council on such measures. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to take no position on State Ballot Measure 1. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. State Ballot Measure 2 Ms. Bascom argued that while the voters had indicated opposition in the past to the use of the gas tax to support other services, she believed they might be interested in supporting parks as provided in measure 2 (amend the consti- e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 3 11:30 a.m. e tution to allow the use of gas tax moneys for parks). She urged the council to take no position on the ballot measure. Mr. Boles indicated that the committee had been unanimous in its recommenda- tion to the council. Linda Lynch, Director of Intergovernmental Relations Division, said the committee discussion had focused on past council positions regarding allowable uses for the Highway Trust Fund dollars. The council had shown willingness in the past to expand the use of those dollars for transpor- tation-related activities only. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to oppose State Ballot Measure 2. The motion passed, 5:1, Ms. Bascom voting no. State Ballot Measure 7 Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to support State Ballot Measure 7. Ms. Bascom said that Mr. MacDonald had been in opposition to council support for the split roll property tax. Additionally, the League of Oregon Cities opposed the measure. Ms. Bascom said she supported a "no position" motion. Ms. Lynch noted that the committee had been split on the measure, 2:1. Mr. Rutan urged the council to avoid taking a position on the issue. He pointed out that the measure had no direct financial impact on the City. Mr. e Nicholson disagreed with Mr. Rutan's statement, saying that while there may be no "direct" impact, the State was likely to divert funds currently sent to cities to other purposes to offset the impact of Ballot Measure 5. He noted that as a small business owner the tax would impact him, but he believed there were benefits to taxing nonowner-occupied property at higher levels. Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Lynch said that the League of Oregon Cities and Chamber of Commerce opposed the measure as those bodies did not believe it represented a long-term, systematic attempt at tax reform. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Rutan said that Mr. MacDonald had changed his position on the ballot measure since committee discussion oc- curred. Mr. Boles agreed that the measure did not present a long-term solution, but pointed out it would provide relief to the community's major employer, the University of Oregon, until the legislature can address the State's budget problems. He expressed concern that the future of higher education could be jeopardized by the time the Legislature can act. Ms. Ehrman said she was unwilling to take a council position if the council did not have a majority of members in favor of the position. The motion failed, 2:4; Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Boles voting yes. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 4 11:30 a.m. e Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the council take no position on State Ballot Measure 7. The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Boles and Mr. Nicholson voting no. III. EUGENE DECISIONS Mr. Mounts introduced Glen Klein of the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Klein reviewed the definition of restaurants drafted by staff, including a) sit-down restaurants, b) carry-out restaurants, c) caterers, d) grocery stores, e) temporary restaurants, and f) vending machines. The council briefly discussed the definition of the phrase "prepared meals" in conjunction with the definition of restaurant. Mr. Rutan suggested that the council establish a definition of restaurant and provide additional direction to staff regarding the definition of prepared foods prior to the time the ordinance is drafted. Ms. Bascom did not support the broadened definition of restaurant represented by staff. Mr. Boles suggested that the council take a series of straw ballots to indicate support for the components of the definition. Ms. Ehrman proposed that (f) be removed from the definition. Mr. Green arrived at the meeting at 12:30 p.m. e Mr. Boles opposed the motion for reasons of equity and pointed out that many places of employment are serving prepared foods through vending machines. The council agreed to retain (f) in the definition. Ms. Ehrman proposed that (e) be removed from the definition. Ms. Ehrman pointed out that many such establishments were in operation for a very brief time, such as one week out of the year, and were staffed by volunteers for nonprofit organizations. She cited booths at the County Fair as an example. Ms. Bascom questioned how the City would collect from booths set up for food fairs. Mr. Boles expressed concern about the costs of administering the tax for such establishments. He indicated he would not support Ms. Ehrman's proposal at the present time, but supported examining those administrative costs in the future and reconsidering the issue. Mr. Nicholson supported inclusion of (e) in the definition as the council was attempting to establish the broadest possible definition of a restaurant and for the sake of equity. He did not perceive a problem with collecting from such establishments, pointing out that most were associated with a continuing e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 5 11 :30 a.m. e organization, such as Saturday Market and the Lane County Fair and receipts are tracked for the purpose of paying a percentage to participate. Ms. Bascom pointed out that many such events were fund-raising efforts, and money would be redirected from those efforts to the City. Mr. Boles pointed out that the tax was a tax on the consumer, rather than the business. The council agreed to retain (e) in the definition. Ms. Bascom expressed concern over the inclusion of bakeries in the definition. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the definition of a restaurant include components (a) through (f). The motion passed 6:1; Ms. Bascom voting in opposition. Mr. Klein asked the council to consider the definition of a "prepared meal." Responding to a concern raised by Ms. Bascom, Mr. Boles said that the council would define some level that triggers the tax and provide that delineation in the ordinance. Mr. Nicholson proposed that definition (f) be revised to remove the word "dispensed" from the phrase "dispensed soft drinks." He suggested that control over the tax would be established by a definition of quantity and source. Mr. Rutan objected as he believed it broadened the scope of the tax to include grocery items. e The council agreed to Mr. Nicholson's suggestion. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to adopt the defini- tions as revised. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Rutan and Ms. Bascom voting no. The council reviewed a list of possible exemptions to the tax. Mr. Boles pointed out that restaurant meals for employees was often used as a form of compensation. He opposed taxing such meals. He did not believe such meals should be included in the definition of prepared meals because no money was exchanged. Ms. Ehrman suggested that hospital patient food be exempted from the tax. The council agreed with Ms. Ehrman's proposal. Mr. Klein explained that (b) referred to a hospitality facility that charged one price for a room and a continental breakfast. Ms. Ehrman proposed that (b) be included in the list of exemptions. The council supported the exemp- tion. Mr. Rutan asked for information about (c), which provided for the exemption of meals for employees for industrial plants. He pointed out that prepared foods e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 6 11:30 a.m. e in vending machines were included in the definition of a restaurant. Ms. Bascom questioned why those meals would be exempted. The council agreed to remove (c) from the list of exemptions. The council agreed to remove (d), which exempted meals sold by nonprofits to its members, from the list of exemptions. The council agreed to retain (e), meals sold by public and private elementary or secondary schools, on the list of exemptions. The council agreed to delete (f), meals as part of restaurant employee compensation, from the list of exemptions. The council deleted (g), meals for government officials on official business, from the list of exemptions. Mr. Miller expressed concern over the ability of the City to compete with other communities for convention business if the municipality taxed meals served in conjunction with conventions. He asked if other municipalities with a restaurant tax exempted convention meals. Mr. Klein did not recall any examples. Mr. Rutan said Mr. Miller's concern was valid, but suggested that inclusion of such meals in the tax was difficult to avoid. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to include (a), (b), (e), and (f) on the list of exemptions. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bascom voting no. e Responding to a concern raised by Mr. Rutan regarding the need for the most clear proposal possible, Mr. Klein said that staff would return to the council with the draft charter amendment and ordinance for further review and revi- sion. Mr. Boles left the meeting. Ms. Ehrman proposed that definition (f) should be nonalcoholic beverages rather than soft drinks. Due to a lack of consensus, the council agreed to revisit the suggestion to expand the definition when more councilors were present. Mr. Boles returned to the meeting. The council briefly discussed policy issues related to the costs of collecting the tax for business. Mr. Rutan proposed that for up-front costs, the council allocate a fixed amount of money per business meeting the definition to address the capital costs of collecting the tax. That money would be paid to the establishments collecting the tax from receipts over the first year. Ms. Ehrman left the meeting at 1:12 p.m. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 7 11:30 a.m. e Mr. Nicholson noted that, as a small businessman collecting a variety of taxes, no government agency had offered to offset the costs of tax collection for his business. Mr. Rutan suggested the difference was that the taxes in question were general revenues rather than transaction revenues such as the restaurant tax. Mr. Nicholson advocated a flexibility in the tax structure that allowed businesses to collect the tax directly from the customer or integrate the tax in their prices and pay it as a gross receipts tax. Mr. Gleason recommended that the council consider timing prior to consider- ation of the collection costs. Mr. Boles said that it would be helpful to know the City's policy regarding start-up costs for private businesses when the Transient Room Tax was insti- tuted. Mr. Miller noted that Ms. Ehrman had indicated a preference for referral to the voters before the end of 1992. Mr. Robinette reported that Lane County Elections Division had requested a six-week period following the general election before any other election was held, meaning the earliest election would probably occur in January. Bill Gary of the City Attorney's Office reviewed three options for referral of the restaurant tax to the voters. Mr. Nicholson left the meeting at 1:26 p.m. e The council failed to reach consensus regarding a preferred date and agreed to take up the issue at a later time. The meeting adjourned at 1:31 p.m. Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) cc113030.092 e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 8 11:30 a.m.