Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/30/1979 Meeting - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL May 30, 1979 Adjourned meeting from May 29, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:40 a.m., May 30, 1979, Council Chambers, with the following Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, D.W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Scott lieuallen, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL - e A. Increase in Swimming Pool Fees Mr. Haws asked if City swimming pool rates had risen from $25 to $78 as he had heard from his constituents. Mr. Drapela replied that Parks is trying to keep all pools open and that, effective June 7, 1979, daily swim fees will be increased. Season passes will need to be increased commensurate with three daily admissions a week. In the past, season passes have been a bargain. Staff has considered doing away with the season passes. A family yearly pass has gone from $50 to $216. Mr. Drapela said the season pass is no longer a super bar- gain since the City is faced with closing Jefferson Pool. This increase seems a reasonable action. Mr. Haws asked that a fee schedule be submitted to the Council. B. Clarification of Eliminated Position--Mr. Obie said he continues to get calls that Mel Jackson, Parks, is leaving the City because of budget cuts. It was his understanding that the position might be eliminated but that the individual was not to be dismissed from the City. He asked if this was correct. Mr. Martin said that that was the best answer to offer at this point. Mr. Jackson has not been in the Outdoor Program in over a year. The functions he has been per- forming in that Department in the last six months have been cut from the budget. Mr. Martin said there is still work to be done and Mr. Jackson may assist in that regard, may shift to another existing position, or may choose to go elsewhere. Ground-Breaking for Wastewater Treatment Plant--Ms. Smith noted that the ground-breaking for the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant is at 11 a.m., Thursday May 1, 1979, at 400 River Avenue. C. D. 5/30/79--1 307 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith to approve the appointment of Ronald J. Vaughn, 1585 N. Danebo, Eugene. Motion carried unanimously. E. Announcements 1. letter from the Mayor Explaining his Reasons for Vetoing the Tax Measures Manager read a letter from Mayor Keller explaining his eight reasons for vetoing council bills 1904, 1905, 1907, and 1908, tax revolt and that citizens are saying no to more taxes; the business tax would be a hidden sales tax; the taxes would divide the community; the process of putting it on the ballot was too hurried; and the proposals if defeated would be eliminated from later consideration. (letter attached.) Mayor Keller said this was a serious decision. He felt it was in the best interest of the City. It was his decision and the letter explained his reasons. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, to override the Mayor's veto. City Attorney explained that it was appropriate for the Council to reconsider these ordinances. It would take a two-thirds vote of the Council to override the veto. Mr. lieuallen said he supported the motion as a matter of record. In response to the letter he questioned the "tax revolt" and felt that the citizens of Eugene wanted City services. He felt that the city was already divided and a campaign that raised those issues would clarify the issues. He said the budget process has been going on for six months and he hoped the people would take the process seriously. This year the process was very clear. The gross receipts tax had been studied three years ago and was defeated in the Budget Committee. If the Council. is unable to override the veto and the issues do not get to the voters for a vote, he hoped the Council would take seriously the budget problem of the City. Mr. Haws likened the veto to someone standing in the door preventing minorities from entering college. He said here was a person refusing to let an issue be put before the voters. Should the voters have a right to decide if they wish to transfer some of the tax burden off of the property tax? Ms. Schue said that she would vote to override the veto for the same reasons as Mr. Haws. We have a problem in funding City services and that problem should be taken to the voters, she said. 5/30/79--2 308 e e e e Mr. Obie said he was delighted with the Mayor's decision and that the decision was a wise one. He commended the Mayor for his courage and his leadership. Ms. Miller said if the veto is sustained it would be a great disappointment that the voters of Eugene would not get to vote on the tax measures. To say the public would not understand issues is to underestimate the voter. She hoped there would be further study and significant positive tax relief to the voter. Mr. Delay noted this was a veto of bills that refer the issues to the people. A consequence is to prevent the community from expressing its opinion. We are dealing with an electorate that is capable of understanding, he said. The gross receipts tax was studied three years ago and recommended as the best alternative. The majority of the Budget Committee then chose not to put it on the ballot. Mr. Delay asked those who would vote to sustain the veto to put their energies and their time and their efforts into passing this budget which they feel should stand alone without the other taxing choices for the voter. Ms. Smith said she would support the veto and she will study the budget problem. If it is decided to have an alternate source of revenue, that revenue will be shared by all and not by a few special interest groups. e Mayor Keller noted that one of the primary jobs of the Mayor is to support the budget and that is his intent. Vote was taken on the motion to override the veto, which was defeated with all Councilors present voting aye except Councilors Hamel, Smith, and Obie voting nay. 2. ~udget Committee Meeting, Monday, 7:30, June 4, 1979, McNutt Room. To consider capital outlay budget, the Community Development Block Grant program and the room tax budgets. 3. Report on ERA's Disposition of Parcel 125A (materials distributed) Manager noted some months ago the Council developed a process for accepting proposals for development of this parcel rather than designating an historic landmark group of buildings. The staff requested proposals. The proposals were reviewed by a special design review committee, by the ERA Board members and the Historic Review Board members. The decision was made by the ERA Board overriding the Historic Review Board's recommendation under their existing authority. The Park Willamette Associates were chosen and the reasons for their selection were outlined in the distri- buted material. The ERA makes their decisions under State law and cannot be overridden by the Council. - 30~ 5/30/79--3 Manager noted this was not a public hearing, but a number of citizens asked to speak with the Council's permission. .e Speaking on the ERA's disposal of Parcel 125A were Dorothy Dole, 930 East 21st; Dorothy Gilmore, 2350 City View Road; LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President; Brad Perkins, 1691 Mill; Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd. Those testifying wondered how the ERA Board could reject a proposal that was recommended by three agencies, the Historic Review Board, the ERA staff, and the Renewal Agency Design Review Team. They asked how the City Council could give the power of appeal away since the ERA Board is not answerable to the citizens. Several suggestions were given for the Council action: 1) the City Council could designate the buildings historic; 2) the Council could ask ERA to justify their choice over the recommended proposal; 3) the Council could look into the question of legality. Can people who sell property to ERA be allowed to develop that property or is it a conflict of interest? and 4) the Council could appoint a committee to consider all the facets of this problem. The people who testified could not understand destroying three irreplaceable historic buildings for one "giant clam." They recognized that the larger building would bring in more tax money and that rehab monies would be brought to rehabilitating the old structures. e Tom Slocum, 2125 Fairmount, Associate with Park Willamette Associates Group, responded that his group followed the guidelines and felt that they were keeping the best of the old structures. He would be glad to respond to questions. Their group was anxious to move forward with developing the area. There being no other person wishing to speak on the issue, the Mayor asked for Council comment. In response to Mr. Haws' question, "What can we do?," Mr. Long stated this was an old problem dating b~ck to 1971. ERA is a separate body with State and Federal statutes and regulations. There is no appeal process. Review in the courts would be possible if someone could contend a capricious decision had been made. If the Council is uncomfortable with ERA, they can recapture ERA powers. The Council would then sit as ERA itself and take over its functions. Mr. Long suggested Council could ask ERA to reconsider and express its opinion. Mr. Haws asked if the Council could reappoint members and Mr. Long could not respond. Mr. Kupper said ERA is drawing up an agreement with Park Willamette Associates Tuesday and any "substantial divergence" from that agreement would be cause for termination. - 3/0 5/30/79--4 e Councilors Lieuallen and Miller asked that the ERA include in the agreement the features that were their reasons for choosing the Park Willamette project (price, theater, condominium housing downtown, second level mall) and consider "substantial divergence" as not fulfilling anyone of those features. When Mr. Lieuallen asked if an environmental impact statement was required, Mr. Kupper told him the ERA requires an environmental "clearance" be filed with the Federal Government. When the environmental clearance was filed, the question arose concerning the historic value of the buildings, he said. Mr. Delay was disappointed that ERA and the Historic Review Board could not come up with a compromise as the Council had asked. He said Council has no power to act except through extreme and arbitrary measures. Mayor reiterated Mr. Delay's statements and asked that historic preservation receive high priority. He asked that the record state that the Council is most sensitive to historic preservation and that those feelings be conveyed to the ERA. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Council Minutes May 14 and 16, 1979. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes of May 14, 1979. Motion carried unanimously (Obie absent for vote). B. Calling Public Hearing July 11, 1979, Re: Street Vacation. e C.B. 1900--Calling public hearing for July 11, 1979, re: Street Vacation located on Spring Boulevard midway between Firland Boulevard and Kimberly Drive (Andersen--SV 79-2) was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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 passed unanimously (Councilors Miller and Obie absent for vote), and the bill was read a second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18413. C. Improvement Petition (Affected property on petition: Paving 100 percent; sewers, 75.4 percent; no City costs) e 311 5/30/79--5 Res. No. 3164--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction in and adjacent to Harriet Park Subdivision (1509) was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously (Miller and Obie not present for vote). III. ~EVIEW OF PERMIT PROCESS FOR HISTORIC USES ZONE (Memo distributed) - Manager noted the receipt by the Council of a letter dated May 30, to Mr. Douglas Bayern, Attorney at Law, Northwest Legal Advocates from Mr. John L. Franklin, the City Attorney's staff, regarding the City practice in this matter. In January 1978, Unthank Seder Poticha made application to the City for the construction of four condominium units located in the 100 block of High Street. Two lots were vacant and two lots required demolition of existing structures. On April 11, the City Council designated this area an historic landmark. A building permit authorizing demolition of existing structures and construction of the condominium unit was issued on or about May 1, 1979. The issue is whether the restrictions and procedures contained in the East Skinner Butte Historic Ordinance are to be applied to the USP development. The City is not going to require that USP comply with the Historic Landmark Ordinance of this date because of the long-standing City policy in reviewing valid building permit applications that have been filed prior to a change in zoning or building regulations under the terms of the law existing at the time the valid applications were filed. If this policy ~ were changed it would have to be a Council action. .., Mr. Long felt it was necessary for the City to be consistent. In the past the City Code and zoning were honored as of the day of filing a complete application. The Attorneys on the other side of the question point out that the City could have a different policy if it wants to. The City has a legal right to enforce a different policy. As a staff, however, they could not deal differently with this application. If there is to be a change, it should be done with regard to everyone at once and with the proper announcement. Mr. Long said the Council could direct the staff to take some other course of action. Ms. Schue left the meeting. Councilors Haws, Smith, Obie, Lieuallen, Hamel, and Miller did not feel in this instance they could change the long-standing, evenly applied policy of the City for this one-time instance, nor did they wish to discuss the merits of changing that policy. IV. ORDINANCE REVISION RE: NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEALS TO COUNCIL (Ordinance distributed) Manager noted this was a housekeeping ordinance revision concerning hearings panel process. The Attorney's office informed the City it was necessary to insert the additional wording. The problem arose out of court cases on the appeals of the Zoning Board decisions to the assess- ~ ment panel stating not adequate notice was given. This measure defines notice procedures. 312. 5/30/79--6 e C.B. 1901--Concerning notice of hearings of appeals to the Council; amending Section 2.007 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and declaring emergency was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only with the unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion passed unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18414. V. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENT PROCESS ORDINANCE (ordinance distributed) Manager asked that this be postponed and action be put on a future agenrla pending revisions to this ordinance. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to June 6, 1979. · ~nJ~ City Manager (Beth Conant, Minutes Recorder) sp/CM7a25 .e 3/3 5/30/79--7 \....-' c o E G N y F u E '1' E I May 29, 1979 R. A. "GUS" KELLER MAYOR ,- Mr. Charles T. Henry City Nanager Ci ty of Eugene Mr. Henry: Please place on the record of the City this notice of the Mayor's veto of Council Bills 1904, 1905,1907 and 1908 for the following reasons: 1. Recognizing that a tax revolt is currently taking place, that additional forms of taxation such as presented by Council Bills 1904, 1905, 1907 and 1908 are not the messages that the majority of Oregonians requested; 2. That a gross receipts tax is really a "sales" tax that Oregonians have defeated on numerous occasions; '-' 3. My personal feelings are that alternatives such as those being requested by the Council for approval by the voters will divide our community and my great concern is for acceptance of a budget this year by a majority of Eugeneans, and that a divided vote will not accomplish this goal - it will take a tremendous effort by every segment for success; 4. The entire process by the Budget Committee and the Council left much to be desired: a) the public understanding, b) the public's right to more information; c) the public's access to the Council deliberations with more notice; d) committee and council unable to reach accord; 5. The property transfer tax is not adequately responsive to inflation, nor is the Gross Receipts Tax and is unfair to those whom it would affect; 6. If all three bills are defeated in the same election, that eliminates both of these taxing alternatives for consideration in the future; 7. We need to consider alternatives for the future of Eugene - better prepared and understood by our citizens - done without haste but most of all a progressive tax that would not be a "stamp" cure but one that responds to inflation and the needs of our local government; 8. Our city budget approval process is currently being clouded by proposed new forms of taxation, that would need no voter approval in the future regarding rate increases. \....; R. A. "Gus" Keller Mayor 31Lf . e f I I .1 ! t I ,