Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1978 Meeting - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 15, 1978 Adjourned meeting from March 13, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President D. W. Hamel at 11:30 a.m., on March 15,1978, King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors present: Ray Bradley, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, and Betty Smith. Mayor R. A. Keller, and Councilors Brian Obie and Tom Williams were absent. - I. Items from Mayor and Council A. Central Lane County METROPORT District Formation--In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Manager said the Department of Economic Development had sent a notice indicating at their regular monthly meeting March 17 in Pendleton, Oregon, consideration would be g~vento application for a Central Lane County port district named METROPORT. Formal action on the port district formation request is tentatively scheduled for April 14, 1978. Manager said Council had taken a neutral p0rition regarding a port district by neither voting against nor for it. Mr. Haws felt Council should receive information on the procedure and send a recommendation to the Economic Development Commission either to support or not to support the port district. John Porter, Director, Planning Department, said Mr. Mustoe, from L-COG, had prepared a response and would be attending the meeting. The Planning Department has supplied L-COG with information and City Council action indicating it is felt premature to determine if a port district should be formed. He said it was unclear how this Commission could hold a hearing on establishing a local port district. as it was felt that to be a local determination. It is felt that a port district should not be supported until the L-COG position has been presented, which should be in late March. Mr. Delay agreed that Council ought to at least respond in writing that it wishes to be kept abreast of the development of the hearings. Wes Morgan, Chairman of the Economic Affairs for the Chamber of Commerce, said the meeting March 17 in Pendleton will be to accept the application, with 30 days for taking testimony and public in- put. The meeting in April would then be to approve the port district, which would then have to be approved by the voters. in this area. . 3/15/78--1 J~8 I It was consensus of Council that the information Mr. Porter was going to distribute should be sent out of the City Manager1s Office 4IIJ on behalf of the City Council, thereby denoting their position. Mr. Porter noted it appears that an establishment of a separate port district for this area might be in conflict with the 1990 Plan and the statement of community goals. B. Metro Wastewater Service District--Betty Smith reported at 9:15 this morning, Lane County Commissioners by a 3:0 vote officially approved setting up the wastewater service district. She noted the formation of this district had been five and one-half years in the process and it was hoped this would be a major step forward in cooperative agree- ments between the local jurisdictions. C. AFSCME Local 1724 Tentative Agreement--Gary Long, Personnel Director, said the City had reached a tentative agreement in contract talks for a three-year contract with the Local 1724 for an 8.2 percent general wage adjustment in the first year and a cost of living formula for second and third year wage adjustments. The proposed contract also provides for special salary adjustments of several employee classifications, a vacation benefit adjustment, and improved disability coverage. Other contract improvements were in the areas of safety, grievance procedures, and union and city security provisions. The union will conduct a ratification election on the contract in early April. Mr. Long thanked John O'Connor of the Personnel Department as the City spokesperson and thanked union leadership, especially Dan Anderson, ,or the time that was spent in reaching this agreement. -- Dan Anderson, representing union Local 1724, said the union was generally pleased with the agreement. He also thanked the City staff and union members for their hard work in reaching the compro- mise. He hoped this wqu1d set the stage for continued development of positive and mature relationships between the City and the unions. He did note one concern of the union being in the area of affirmative action, with the union feeling that has not been adequately recog~ nized. He suggested the City establish some sort of tools to use that may be more effective than those in use. The union is prepared to support the staff in the mutual effort to develop such tools to reach these goals. Betty Smith responded regarding affirmative action that the City has a task force which is in the process of reviewing the programs and updating the report with comparisons from last year. She said the Council should be receiving such a report in the next two months. Manager announced he would sign the contract after the membership of the Local 1724 has ratified the contract. . 3/15/78--2 "~ e D. MAPAC Fina1ists--It was announced the finalists selected by Council President and Vice President for interviews of the two vacancies on MAPAC were as follows: James Breeden, William Levin, James Lemert, John Morrison, and Joseph Olexa. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to schedule Council interview of the finalists for Wednesday, March 29, 6:30 p.m., McNutt Room, with questions to be submitted to finalists prior to the interview. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bradley noted there will be a MAPAC meeting March 23 and the finalists might want to be advised of that meeting in case they wish to attend. E. CETA--Gary Long reported since the February 8 status report to Council, the staff has been negotiating with Lane County about a program agent agreement and it appears that will be resolved within the framework of the general City Council policy in the near future. The staff is also busy getting a reapplication submitted to the Department of Labor which will be necessary to recognize the City of Eugene as a prime sponsor. However, he said there was some ques- tion regarding the status of the city's population of 100,000. e F. Minorities Commission--Manager noted two vacancies on the Commission, with staff advertising to 5:00 p.m., March 24. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to accept the resig- nation of Tokshin Yi. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to affirm the Commission Chairman action removing Dave Harding from the Minorities Commis- sion because of unexcused absences. Motion carried unanimously. G. Agenda Adjustment--Manager noted three public hearings scheduled for water withdrawals would be heard after the public hearings on street and easement vacations. II. Public Hearings Re. Street and Easement Vacation A. Street vacation, located east of Wallis Street between West First Avenue and the Amazon Channel (Hult) (SV 77-5). Jim Saul, Planner, said the street is one that was dedicated some years ago. Since that time a different subdivision pattern with alternative streets had been approved. The street is not needed for access and vaca- tion was recommended by staff. Public hearing was opened. e 3/15/78--3 "0 ,---- Wes Morgan, representing Mr. Hult, noted he was in favor of the new alignment of streets as the present alignment creates a problem for ~ adjoining property owners. Public hearing was closed. there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1631--Authorizing street vacation located east of Wallis Street between West First Avenue and the Amazon Channel was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second ti me by council bi 11 number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voti ng aye, the bi 11 was decl ared passed and numbered 18136. B. Street vacation, located north of Be1t1ine Road between Erin W~ and Coburg Road (Willona Drive) (SV 77-12). Jim Saul addressed both the street and easement vacations saying this was a subdivision platted six months ago. Subsequently, it became apparent there was not sufficient space between the street and storm sewer easement for the location of buildings. The matter was reviewed by the Public Works Department and it was decided a limited portion of the storm sewer easement could be vacated. It would provide six feet of additional area. It was also decided the bulb of the cul-de-sac could be shifted north to pick up some additional footage for the lots on the south. e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1632--Authorizing street vacation located north of Beltline Road between Erin Way and Coburg Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present request- ing it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18137. - 3/15/78--4 111 -- c. Easement vacation, located along the northerly margin of Beltline Road between Coburg road and Gilham Road (Slocum)(EV 77-9) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1633--Authorizing easement vacation located along northerly margin of Be1t1ine Road between Coburg Road and Gilham Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18138. III. Public Hearings Re: Water Withdrawals e Manager said these were routine water withdrawals on recently annexed properties to avoid double taxation in water districts. Pub1i~ hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1634--Authorizing withdrawal from Oakway Water District, that portion of le11ner property annexed between Country Club Road and Willamette River by Final Order 466 of Boundary Commission was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18139. e C.B. 1635--Authorizing withdrawal from Oakway Water District, street right-of-way by Final Order 481 of Boundary Commission (Gilham) (CEU 78-2) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in fu 11 . 3/15/78--5 111 Mr. Brad1 ey moved, seconded by Mr. Del ay, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18140. C.B. 1636--Authorizing withdrawal from Oakway Water District, street right-of-way by Final Order 482 of Boundary Commission (Crescent) (CEU 78-3) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18141. e IV. Segregation of Assessment Arlo Giles, 2220 Hawkins Lane, SE 78-1 Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve the segrega- tion of assessment. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. V. Discussion of Proposed Changes to Systems Development Charge Memo, map, and ordinances distributed. Manager said the ordinance changes had been prepared to address major concerns expressed by Councilors and pUblic at its January 23 public hearing. He said this would be work session with no action required except perhaps scheduling the process of action on ordinances at a future date. He noted there were two ordi- nances: Development tax ordinance and a street assessment ordinance. The latter is contingent upon passage of the tax ordinance. In reviewing major changes for Council, Manager said the proposal now defined the charge as a tax, which may result in more revenue sharing funds for the City in the future. Another change is in the manner of exemptions, with a geographical area designated as exempt, basically - 3/15/78--6 I "~ e the core area, most of which would be fully exempt, and a portion on the south side which would be 50 percent exempt. He said also gradual increases in the basic charge will be provided for annexations since 1948 at a rate of one percent per year up to the date of annexation. Aother major area of exemption relates to city-subsidized housing as distinct from federally-subsidized. The development tax would be used as a growth management tool in the sense of subsidizing inner-city construction. Regarding financing operations, there were several different ones pro- posed ranging from complete payment at once with three-percent discount versus various types of payment including ten-year Bancrofting or a five-year option. Manager said staff was hoping a decision could be made for future action sometime in April as the construction season is commencing. He said also action on the ordinance may result in a f100~ of applications prior to Council's action. Ms. Smith expressed concern that if Council were to take action at an April meeting, it was her hope that the organizations and individuals concerned about the systems tax would have an opportunity to review the proposed changes. Manager said the materials would be ready for distribution in a few days. e Mr. Hamel understood that the Council had requested a committee be formed consisting of Council, builders, and neighborhood leaders to make changes in the systems development charge. Manager said he was not aware that a committee Wa~ to be set up. It was his understanding the matter was referred back to staff to make suggested changes. Manager also distri- buted a map to Council which showed where the building permits were issued for the Fiscal Year 1976-77, and showed the effect of the exempt district. Mr. Delay agreed with Manager's interpretation in that Council had decided to refer the matter back to staff for obvious improvements. He did not see a need for an additional pUblic hearing; however, if one were scheduled, he hoped it would be limited in scope to the refinements as the Council had already endorsed the systems development tax. Regarding the map and questions from Council, Don Gilman, Public Works, said about 13 percent of the building permits in 76-77 were in the pro- posed exempt area. Mr. Lieuallen commented it appeared the building permits were fairly uniformly distributed around the city. He ques- tioned what the building permits were for, whether for major remodeling jobs, new construction, or fencing. Mr. Gilman said it could be anything requiring a permit, including all of those mentioned. He said they represented about $80 million in new construction. e 3/15/78--7 "It Mr. Lieua11en was interested in knowing the nature of the construction and type of building permits issued. He wondered what the effect of 4It the exemption would be on the inner-city and the net effect on total revenue. He said if the type of permits issued in the central area were ones that put new demands on the systems, then that would be sub- sidizing this area. However, if it were not putting demands on the systems, then he felt there was a good reason to exempt that area. However, he felt there was a need for more specific information in order to make that judgment. Manager said that information would not be avail- able as staff would have to be predicting for the next 20 years. Mr. Lieuallen said then the basis should not be building permits, but the issue should be if the City wants to levy a new tax. He considered the information on the map to be worthless information. Manager said Council would at least know in terms of the number of permits, noting 13 percent of the building permits were issued for the proposed exempt area. He said the numbers show the vast majority of the tax would be collected outside of the inner core. Also, Manager noted the substantial share of the inner-city would be permits for maintenance and would not be affected by the tax. Another consideration Manager noted for the core area was that some dwellings may be replaced with other dwellings and would not have an affect on on the systems as there would be the same number of dwelling units. Mr. Lieuallen felt strongly the central area should be exempt. He requested staff prepare a resolution for Council action defining the inner area to be exempt. Mr. Haws asked for a definition of "tax". Don Gilman said the use of the term "tax" would provide a type of collection system that would not necessarily establish a lien on property in the beginning. This was the major reason for changing the name. Also, it would allow establishment of various types of prepayment process; and the federal government defines such a charge as a tax. Another advantage would be the possible revenue sharing funds for the City. He said there seemed to be no disadvantage in calling it a tax, and changing the name would not change anything in terms of how the amount is computed. Stan. Long, City Attorney, explained how a lien shows up on a title report when a person is trying to secure financing for a new home. The lending institution usually would make the individual payoff such a lien before allowing financing. This would be inconsistent if the individual wished to payoff the tax in five to ten years. The proposed draft ordinance does not impose a lien inmediately, but would become a .lien at some later date if it were not paid. However, it would not be a lien at the beginning when the house is being financed. ,e e 3/15/78--8 '15 - Mr. Haws requested a copy of the research information for Council regarding the changing of the name from charge to tax. In response to a question from Ms. Smith, Manager said it would probably not be a tax deduction by IRS standards as special assessment taxes usually are not. Mr. Lieuallen questioned Section 7.279, and Manager replied generally it had been changed to define the three bases upon which the charge is computed. Mr. Gilman said Section 1 relates to the properties within the city that may not be converted to sewers. The ordinance provides persons are supposed to convert within 18 months; this ordinance pro- vides that any property that can do so, will have 18 months and if they fail to do so, they would have to pay the sewer portion of the charge. Mr. Lieua1len questioned why there was a flat rate for mobile homes. Mr. Gilman said the flat rate applies to a mobile home park assessed against the spaces, as it would not be known what type of home would be put on the space. He said the mobile park homeowner pays the fee. In regard to mobile home subdivisions and other mobile home developments, it would be charged on the basis of an estimate of the value of the mobile home. e Mr. Lieuallen questioned Section 7.277 regarding religious buildings being exempt. Mr. Gilman said there was an attempt to relate those types of uses to the demands put on the system. It was felt the struc- tures use half as much demand as other construction. The charge relates to the structural value, and he noted churches were pretty expensive in terms of the amount of use. It was felt if the religious structures were charged for the whole amount relative to the services they get, it might be an unfair assessment. Mr. Bradley questioned the difference between the use of public funds and private funds in the central area, noting perhaps the Council should not be subsidizing private funds. Manager replied it related to a policy question in that the City was trying to stimulate in-filling of the central area and this was one tool to be used. John Porter, Planning Director, said based on a neighborhood analysis of the city, it is impor- tant to get private investments in the central area as there are not enough public funds to be used there. He noted also that as this area is built up, perhaps other areas in the city would qualify for the exemp- tion in order to stimulate private funds and investments in those areas. - Betty Niven, Chairman, JHC, said the Committee had looked at the changes and was pleased with those that had been made. However, there was one aspect with which the Committee was concerned: The schedule for repayment. She understood the Finance Department's concern in admini- stering the five-year financing option. However, the Committee was shocked to see the five-year financing option at eight percent interest. She noted the payment schedule as prepared by Don Gilman, dated March 10, 1978, and compared the per-monthly cost for a 28-year as compared with a five-year tax. It was hoped that somehow the financing would be scheduled 3/15/78--9 '1~ for smaller payments. She noted the higher charge would be passed on to renters; also homeowners experience higher costs in new construction, thus ~ the tax would serve to be a disadvantage for both. The JHC would like ..., Council to accept the ten-year period for payment and, if not, then eight-year payment. She also noted for Council that most Bancrofting payments run thei r full-term peri ode In regard to Mr. Haws I concern about the term used, she said the JHC did not object to it being called a tax in the sense that it would not be.a lien against the homeowner. In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Manager said the 1948 date for annexation was used as there were substantial annexations after that date. As an example, if a property were annexed in 1950, there would be a two-percent addition to the basic charge. Regarding the exemption of religious buildings, Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the buildings would be assessed at a greater value if they were not churches and whether this was saying such structures were of better quality. The Assistant Manager noted the religious buildings were usually of very different construction. Mr. Lieuallen wondered further if this was not putting a negative incentive on construction, thus giving incentive to poor quality of construction for less assessed value. Ms. Niven replied that is a problem with the whole property tax system. Mr. Lieuallen questioned further if the reduced tax charge was based entirely on the reason that the buildings were used less than others. Mr. Gilman said yes, it was strictly on the service demands as they related to the cost of the systems. Regarding Mr. Lieuallen's question regarding the cost of construction, Mr. Gilman said most of the permit ~ valuations are based on the average cost per square foot and he did .., not think this charge would encourage someone to build less quality facilities. In answer to a question from Mr. Bradley, Manager said less revenue would be raised because of the exemptions. He said for the next five years the City will need $10 million for storm sewers and arterials alone. It is hoped $3.5 million would come from the tax. The city taxpayers woul d have ~o provi de the remai nder. Mr. Delay questioned why the percentage had been dropped from 50 to 35 percent for arterials and storm sewer funds. Assistant Manager said the assessment policy had been changed. Mr. Delay then continued the only weakness he saw in the proposed ordinance was not targeting a suffi- cient amount of the required dollars for new funding to come from this tax. Ms. Niven relayed a concern of JHC regarding the ease with which the tax could be increased. She assumed it would have to be done by ordi- nance, and that the citizens would be properly notified before such an increase. This was affirmed. - 3/15178--10 l :, \11 . - Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. De lay, to place th e sytems deve 1- opment tax ordinance on the Council agenda for April 10 without a public hearing. Ms. Smith opposed the elimination of a public hearing, feeling that persons who were concerned should be allowed to express their con- cerns to Council before action is taken. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion to schedule a public hearing April 10 on the entire ordinance. Mr. Delay opposed the amendment, saying the Council had already had a hearing on the whole issue and felt only the changes addressed today needed to be scheduled for public hearing. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the amendment to schedule a public hearing April 10 limited only to the addi- tional changes in the ordinance. Vote was taken on the amendment to the amendment, which passed unanimously. Vote was taken on the amendment to the main motion which carried with Hamel, Delay, Bradley, Lieuallen, and Smith voting aye; Haws voting no. 4IIt Vote was taken on the main motion, which passed unanimously. VI. Approval of Minutes Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes March 8, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to March 27, 1978. ~~. .//:- Charles T. Henry~~ City Manager CTH: Dr: rj /CM12b22 - 3/15/78--11 118