Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/1978 Meeting '( , M I NUT E S e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL November 22, 1978 Adjourned meeting from November 15, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, November 22, 1978, 11:30 a.m., King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, and Betty Smith. Councilor Brian Obie was absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL A. Election Process--Mr. Delay wondered about changes to the election process which would eliminate the necessity for a candidate's name to be on the 'November ballot should a majority be received in May. It was understood that alternatives would be explored as a state statute change is required. B. Panhandle Moratorium--Mr. Hamel wondered why the moratorium on panhandle lots had not been lifted at the end of the six-month peri od. Manager responded there was a question involving assess- ments, which was referred to the Attorney's Office. The Subcom- e mittee's report now goes to the Planning Commission, after which it will come to the Council. C. Manager Evaluation Committee--The Manager evaluation subcommittee will be Mr. Hamel, Mr. Obie, and Mayor Keller. D. Assessment Panel Meeting--Manager announced an Assessment Panel meeting for December 4, at which time the A&X matter will be on the agenda. E. Council Meeting Cancellation--There will be no Council meeting on November 29, because of the lack of heavy items. However, a Budget Subcommittee meeting will be held at that time in the Manager1s office. That meeting will involve Councilors Haws and Smith. F. CETA Status Report--Gary Long introduced Randy Miller who is working in Personnel and who will be responsible for the CETA program. He noted distribution to Council members today of a memo regarding the status of the CETA program. Regarding answers from the County Commissioners to concerns about the City-County commitment to having e 11/22/78--1 '31 ~. . a positive relationship, a letter has been forwarded to the Depart- e ment of Labor to be used as a last formal instrument for stimulating negotiations and to preserve the City's interest in the program. Hopefully, the City will not need that kind of instrument. Mr. Lieuallen wondered if it might be a worthwhile gesture to have Council indicate its support of staff's efforts. Mr. Long said he talked to the Department of Labor today saying that things were taking a positive shift. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Council Minutes November 8 and 15; Legislative Subcommittee Minutes November 15, 1978--Manager said that two decisions at the Legis- lative Subcommittee meeting had not been unanimous. One concerns the proposal on exhausts and noise pollution from vehicles. He reminded Council that they had earlier approved Mr. Williams' posi- tion that control should be valley-wide as opposed to city only. Vern Adkinson, LRAPA, explained that in auto emission tests it is hard to guarantee that the owner of the automobile will not readjust the auto after the test. He said that EPA is now conducting a study on 16 uncontrolled automobiles in Eugene, and 16 in Medford. When the results are known, LRAPA will have a better handle on the situation. He said he was proud of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County being willing to go along with controls, and he thinks the larger urban areas in the valley should be controlled. He feels the general public will have to accept its responsibility in all clean-air matters. He urges Council to support any legislation of this type. e Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to reaffirm the original decision made at the last legislative session supporting emission control requirements on a valley-wide basis. Motion carried, all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. Manager said the other matter in the legislative minutes on which there was not unanimous approval was the dust abatement matter. The motion to support such a program was not approved. Mr. Will iams said the committee had been uncomfortable with taking the posture of controlling dust and commiting urban areas to spending a large sum of money. Mr. Delay noted that the matter of unpaved road dust is on the AQMA agenda next week along with charcoal manufacturing plants. He said he would have specific recommendations and cost factors as a result of that meeting. Mr. Haws suggested tabling the matter until Mr. Delay's recommendations come back. He also would like information on how many miles the City usually improves and if any federal funds are available for such projects. Assistant Manager noted there are less than five percent unimproved roads in the city. Mr. Del ay said 11/22/78--2 e 138 . the objective is to come into agreement with the Clean Air Act and with the law, and at the same time avoid a ban of construction of new sources of emissions. The City needs to be able to demon- strate reductions to the EPA in order to be in compliance. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Smith, to table the matter for three weeks. Motion carried unanimously. B. Resolutions Res. No. 3047--Authorizing safe deposit box rental agreement was read by number and title. Res. No. 3048--Authorizing initiating process for street paving on Fairway Loop from Eastwood Lane to Southwood Lane (1660) was read by number and title. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: paving, 84.2%; City costs, $2,500 for extra width) Res. No. 3049--Authorizing initiating process for street paving, sanitary sewer construction within Casa Grande Sub- division, and sanitary sewer construction in Friendly Street from Whitten Drive to 200 feet south, and paving Friendly Street from Storey Boulevard to 400 feet north (1636) was read by number and title. e (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: paving, 77.3%; sewers, 93.8%; City costs, none) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve the Council minutes of November 8 and 15, the legislative subcommittee minutes as amended, and adopt Resolutions Nos. 3047, 3048, and 3049. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENT RE: EXERCISE OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM-- Ordinance has been distributed to Council members. Passage of the ordinance would limit initiative petitions to primary and general November elections but would allow Council actions for such elec- tions on amendments to be authorized as they are now. Manager referred to Section I(l}(c} which says, "Unless the signatures on the petitions have been secured within six months after the date on which the first sig- nature on the petition has been affixed.'" He said that Councilors may want to consider whether six months is too long a time ~eriod. City Attorney Joyce Benjamin pointed out that should the Council, for example, pass an ordinance and it is subsequently referred to the voters, Council could call a special election or they could take no action thereby setting the ordinance over to a primary or general election and causing an 18-month delay. Assistant Manager further explained that a referendum can be by Council action or by petition. For a petition to be effective, e it must occur within 30 days, before the ordinance becomes effective if the ordinance does not have an emergency clause. 11/22/78--3 13CJ However, if the ordinance contained an emergency clause, then the . only recourse for a citizen is an initiative petition with a repealer ordinance. That would wait for the general election under the proposal now before the Council. It therefore would eliminate the number of times an initiative or referendum could be voted on unless the Council sets a time. It limits the right of the electorate to use an initiative and referendum, and Assistant Manager reminded the Council that they had given staff that kind of direction earlier. Mayor Keller added that Council felt at that time that, to have a better turnout, it would be best to refer to a general election to resolve arguments about a special election supported by a small number of people. Mr. Williams said he was concerned about people acting at a general election and reversing it at a special election. He wondered if staff could draft it in such a way that reversals of action voted at one general election would occur only at another general election. It was understood that legal staff would look at it. Regarding Item I(1)(c), it was Council's consensus that 100 days should be substituted for six months. It was understood that Council would consider the ordinance for another two weeks and that, in the meantime, the legal staff would work on another draft. IV. CONSIDERATION OF SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TAX AMENDMENTS--Memos have been distributed to Council members. It had been requested that a review be conducted about six months following the systems development tax amendment. Staff's November 17, - 1978, report relates the experience to date. It appears the City is getting more in the neighborhood of $800,000 a year than $600,000 as originally estimated. The figures indicate that the systems develop- ment tax has not had a significant impact on building construction in Eugene. According to the report, the types of development that need to be considered for exemption or reduction include the following: 1. Other governmental agencies--The recommendation is that it seems logical that those agencies such as EWEB and School Districts 4-J and 52 should be exempt. Also, Lane County and Lane Community College receive a large part of their revenue from Eugene and should be considered for exemption, or at least a reduction of the tax. Other agencies should generally pay the tax or an equiva- lent user charge. The staff recommends that the ordinance should be amended to include a provision to consider exemption or reduction for developments by other governmental agencies as follows: No taxes due under Section 7.277 of the Code for a development by any municipal, quasi-municipal, or public corporation. Developments by other government agencies may be granted a reduction in or exemption from the tax, when determined by the Council to be in the best interest of the City. 11/22/78--4 e l~O , ~ e 2. City-Supported Developments--The staff recommends that develop- ments which receive City financial support equal to or greater than the development tax amount shall be exempt from the tax. Developments which receive City financial support less than the development tax shall be granted a reduction in the development tax equal to the amount of the City support. 3. Small Residential and Commercial Developments--The staff recommends that developments valued at $5,000 or less should be exempt from the development tax. 4.. Existing Graveled Parking lot ~reas--The staff recommends that unpaved parking areas that existed prior to April 10, 1978, when the development tax was approved, should be exempt from the storm drain tax when they are paved, as this is a deterrent to paving such lots with asphalt or concrete if already graveled. 5. Ordinance Format--Code Section 7.277 can be rewritten to define the tax in more general terms. The tax amounts would remain the same, but the calculation would not be related separately to each facility. This change would simplify administration of the ordinance. Some additional changes should be made to clarify and and improve the ordinance, also, but this would not change the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Haws said he could generally support raising the rates. He had e a problem with No.3, Small Residential Improvements. He fel t that residents should pay development tax for those improvements. Mr. Hamel agreed, feeling that Council should not consider any tax credit considerations. II It is another way for the taxpayer to fi nd out who is expandi ng, and they wi 11 know where the doll ars are goi ng", he sa i d . Manager said he could not see certain public agencies paying a development tax--for example, Wastewater Management Commission. Mr. lieuallen had a problem with the exemptions for school districts. Mr. Williams felt that starting to give any exemptions presents trouble. Don Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director, commented on the fact that Eugene is not planning to charge the development tax to the Metropolitan Wastewater Project. Assistant Manager further pointed out that the Metropolitan Wastewater Project is the City. The City is not normally in the habit of taxing itself. Charles Kupper, HCC Director, said he favors City-supported develop- ment. If the City puts money into a public project, he believes it looks awkward for the City to say go ahead and build it and then attach the systems development charge. Emily Schue, City Council member-elect, spoke as a member of the Joint Housing Committee, which has been trying for two years to put together a housing project in cooperation with other governmental agencies. If they are taxed with the systems development charge, that charge will eventually be passed on in the form of rent, she commented. She feels it is a complication which something that is difficult in e the first place does not need. John Porter, Planning Director, encouraged exemption on City-supported developments. 11/22/78--5 ''+1 I ~ ~ Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to direct staff to bring revisions back incorporating the first three recom- e mendations and get more rationale why to include No.4. He also asked that staff study whether more is being spent on administration than is being received in tax money. Mayor Keller said he would like to consider further some of the remarks he has heard today. He believes that staff should give some recommendation on what to do about people outside the city who use the services but do not get taxed for them. Mr. Lieuallen commented that his only problem area is with the school districts. Mr. Hamel said he didn't see any difference between a hotel in the ERA area and a $10 million private industry plant. Mr. li eua 11 en said he felt it is absurd to compare the two issues, that a down- town development is completely different than an employment facility on the outskirts of the city. With consent of the second, Mr. Lieuallen withdrew his motion. Manager said that there are some editorial changes to be made to the ordinance format and, in the meantime, the staff can further consider the matter for a couple of weeks. At that time, maybe some of the other issues can be clarified. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to November 27, 1978. e ~en)~ City Manager CTH:DP:ml/CM26a20 11/22/78--6 - 1*1.