Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/1980 Meeting . e - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council June 11, 1980 Adjourned meeting of June 9, 1980, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m., June 11, 1980, in the City Council Chamber, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor D. W. Hamel was absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. May 20, 1980, Election Results--Mayor read proclamation of election results which, in part, said: I hereby proclaim and declare as follows: That Measure No. 51, Charter Amendment Limiting the City's Authority to Levy Property Taxes, was passed. That Measure No. 52, Establishment of New City Tax Base, was passed. That R. A. "Gusl' Keller received a majority of the votes cast for Mayor, and is hereby elected as Mayor. That Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, Cynthia Wooten, and Brian Obie received a majority of the votes cast for council positions in Wards 2, 3, 7, and 8, respectively, and are hereby elected~to the City Council. That John A. Tiffany received a majority of the votes cast for EWEB Wards 1 and 8 and is hereby elected as a Eugene Water & Electric Board member for Wards 1 and 8. That Camilla P. Pratt received a majority of the votes cast for EWEB Wards 2 and 3 and is hereby elected as a Eugene Water & Electric Board member for Wards 2 and 3. That Sarah Hendrickson received a majority of the votes cast for EWEB Wards 6 and 7 and is hereby elected as a Eugene Water & Electric Board member for Wards 6 and 7. 6/11/80--1 B. Citizen Involvement Committee Appointment--Mr. Henry stated Darcy Marentette has been reappointed to the Citizen Involvement Committee for a three-year term ending June 30, 1983. . :C. Selection of Assistant City Manager--Mr. Henry stated that David :. Whitlow has been selected as the new Assistant City Manager. He will assist in the Police Chief interviews and will be on board full time beginning July 15, 1980. D. Emergency Medical Services Task Force--Mr. Henry stated this task force would be meeting on Tuesday, June 17, at 1:30 p.m., in the McNutt Room. A favorable response was received from both Springfield and Lane County to add representation to this committee. John Lively will be representing Springfield and George Morgan and Harold Rutherford will be representing Lane County. A letter was sent to the Lane County Medical Society asking them to select another repre- sentative. This meeting will deal with certain phases of the Touche- Ross Study and other organizational matters. E. Boundary Commission Funding--Mr. Henry noted that a semi-favorable response had been received from Springfield in regard to a request of the State Senate for local funding of the Boundary Commission. Cottage Grove seems to be turning negative and a negative response also was received from Oakridge, so Springfield and Eugene are the principal supporters. He distributed a letter which has been drafted to Senate President Jason Boe indicating the City's support. He would like feedback about any potential changes so that this letter could be sent. e Consensus was to send the letter as drafted. . . Mr. Lieuallen asked how much this would cost. Mr. Henry responded that the City of Eugene's share would be about $4,800, but if other jurisdictions did not contribute it could be higher. The total is about $12,000. Mr. Delay stated he feels the City should do what it can to support this until a good comprehensive agreement is reached and LCDC accepts the Metropolitan Plan Update. Mr. Henry stated that if the Boundary Commissions pass out of existence, then Lane County Commissioners will decide on annexations. He does not think the other city councils realize this. Mr. Lieuallen supported Councilor Delay's comments and asked if the legislature will be funding 80 percent. Mr. Henry responded that that is correct, and the local share is $12,300 of a total budget of $62,000. F. Committee Meetin --Mr. Henry stated the e 6/11/80--2 II. ITEMS HELD OVER FROM JUNE 9, 1980, CITY COUNCIL MEETING e A. Condominium Conversion Ordinance--Further Discussion--Mr. Henry stated this discussion was to develop guidelines for staff regarding three specific areas of the ordinance: 1) Councilor Delay's concept of waiving certain regulations for condominiums built since 1975; 2) the $500 tax which is above administrative costs; and 3) how to treat cooperatives. He stated that Jim Croteau, Planning, would discuss Councilor Delay's proposal; Robin Johnson, HCC, would discuss the tax; Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, would discuss cooperatives; and Betty Niven and Robert Linz were available. Jim Croteau stated the technical staff met and discussed these three 'areas. The presentation will make specific recommendations in some areas and note pros and cons in other areas. The public hearing has been closed on this item. e Mr. Croteau stated that Mr. Delay's proposal said that a specific class of rental units newer than ten years and built after 1975 could convert and be exempted from some parts of the ordinance. It was not his intent to exempt them from specific tenant relocation requirements listed in the ordinance. The proposed exemptions are: 1) conversion rate formula; 2) $500 tax; and 3) warranty requirements, engineer certification, and housing inspection. In regard to the warranty requirement, engineer certification, and housing inspection, staff feels there is no validity in exempting these newer units from these requirements and, in most cases, it would be easier to fulfill the requirements on newer units than it would be on older ones; the cost would also be less on newer units. With regard to exemption from the conversion rate formula, 1,400 units would be permitted to convert at the start. If newer projects were exempted, staff feels it would encourage older projects to convert since they would still be subject to the formula limitations. Staff also feels newer projects would be encouraged to convert if a ten-year deadline is placed on them. They would probably try to convert within that time. The formula permits a high number of conversions within the next couple of years. Conversion may also be encouraged by the ceiling which has been placed for the number of allowable conversions. By placing a ceiling on the number of units allowed for conversion, as the home builders brought up, a cloud is placed on future expecta- tions investors have to deal with. Investors might choose not to invest because of the uncertainty of whether or not they would be allowed to convert at a later time. Staff recommends that the formula be deleted. It could be included in the ordinance in an advisory capacity and, in future years, this could be used as a basis for. monitoring conversions on a yearly basis. The City is concerned about conversion and about rental housing. If there were a crisis in the future with too many proposed conversions, then the ordinance could be amended to include a conversion formula. e 6/11/80--3 Mr. Lieuallen stated he feels this is coming close to eliminating the purpose of the ordinance and asked for clarification from the members on the task force. Mr. Delay stated he does not want to stand in the ~ way of new multi-family construction. If the rationale for the conver- ~ sion formula creates a cloud on investment and financing possibilities, he wondered if this would still be the case if this were moved to only an advisory role. He does not feel this changes the thrust of the ordinance very much. It does eliminate the existing regulation, but they could enact the formula at any time. He indicated he would like to hear more of the entire package of considerations. Mr. Sercombe stated that the two disincentives to investors were the tax and the possibility of future limitation of conversion. Investors are afraid there will not be enough allowable conversions under the formula to allow recovery of their investment due to balloon financing. Warranty and displacement factors will not be strong disincentives. The cost of compliance due to displacement would be about $300 or $400 per unit. The staff recommendation is to keep the formula in an advisory capacity until more is known. Mr. Obie felt this would not mean doing away with the ordinance as the council has set out to concern itself with special categories, not to discourage investors. Ms. Smith stated that in addition to the yearly review of the results of the conversion rate 'formula" she would also like to see included in the review information on the availability of rental housing units and administrative costs to the City. Mr. Lieuallen stated that, according to builders in the past, if rules are not clearly spelled out, it makes it difficult to do future planning. Therefore, the argument that putting this formula into effect would be putting a cloud on ~ investment is not a very clear one. He is not convinced that having .., the formula used in an advisory role is a very sensible one since there may be a lot of pressure in the future to convert. Betty Niven stated she had derived the conversion rate formula. The main consideration is if the council wants to have the formula, it must be without Mr. Delay's amendment. Since financing is not regularly available, people would convert at the earliest possible opportunity. She feels that the council does not wish to discourage conversions nor do they wish to encourage early conversions. Under Councilor Delay's proposal, with 1,400 units, each unit would be counted; when 1,400 is reached, newer units can still convert but older ones cannot. It seems that older units would be converted first if more than one structure is owned by an investor. People who bought in 1973 are just as bad off as those who bought later, if they have balloon financing. Ballooning does not necessarily occur at the ten-year period. Age or other limitation factors could possibly encourage premature conversion. Investors, not builders, are who one should be concerned with. Mr. Lieuallen said he understood the Delay pro- posal to relate more to the kind of financing mechanism rather than the timing, as with a certain class of construction which was bought with certain financing that assumed later conversion. He asked for clarification. e 6/11/80--4 e Mr. Delay stated the proposal was to offer a way to deal with the problem. He is not necessarily locked into any particular thinking. Mr. Lieuallen asked about amending the ordinance to exempt a certain class of property based on financing mechanisms. Ms. Niven responded that whether it is financed that way or not, the owner will run out of depreciation in seven or eight years. Every time a cut-off date is established, it sets a climate of encouraging conversion and dis- couraging new construction. Ms. Schue asked' if there was any discussion toward a reservation or arrangement system whereby the investor would be able to know prior to acquiring financing whether or not conversion would be allowed. She stated she is concerned about the availability of rental housing. Ms. Niven responded it is very difficult to know who and where the investors are. The suggestion had been made that the intent be registered with the Planning Department, but not imposing the formula would be a better solution. Housing investors are not necessarily local people. Mr. Delay noted that in terms of the current conditions due to the carry-over aspect, there would appear to be no impending effect of the conversion formula in the near future. Novel techniques have been used in other areas such as Oakland, California, where, builders are issued conversion certificates for each unit constructed which can be traded or sold which puts them back in the free market- place. The investors who are involved with new multi-family conversion would receive additional value, thus encouraging additional new construction. Annual reports may be a reasonable compromise. New multi-family housing construction can be encouraged and additional construction of this nature can be added to the list of priorities charged to the Joint Housing Committee. Robin Johnson stated the ordinance contains a $500-per-unit tax upon conversion to create rental housing development replacement funds. Staff could not reach a consensus on this proposed tax. The main argument in support of the tax is to contribute to future multi- family unit development. The primary argument against the tax came from the Joint Housing Committee who felt that most, if not all, of these costs would be passed on to the buyers of the converted struc- tures. According to the committee, this tax runs counter to existing City policy concerning housing and its availability to all segments of the population. Converted units are one of the most inexpensive forms of ownership available today with many purchasers being first-time home buyers attempting to develop equity in housing. The conversion fee is inequitable and contrary to City policy since it would be passed on to a group of low- and middle-income buyers, least able to afford an increase in the price of their units. The committee raised the basic question of the appropriateness of taxing a particular group of buyers of converted units (relatively lower-income) to provide funds to build housing for another group of renters (also relatively lower-income). e e 6/11/80--5 Mr. Lieuallen stated the way that he understands it, a low-income group of buyers would be financing the needs of a group of low-income renters. He asked if converted units are really a form of low-income ownership, what the median price of the units would be, and also what 4It standards are being used to designate "low-income." Ms. Johnson responded that condominiums generally come on the market at a lower price "than other forms of housing to be purchased. Because of this, they are assuming that the buyers would be at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Mr. Lieuallen asked for more detail, in particular, what Willamette Towers condominiums cost. Ms. Johnson responded $28,000 to $55,000. Mr. Lieuallen asked how that compares with single-family housing. Ms. Johnson responded that a two-bedroom unit at Willamette Towers would be about $44,000 and a comparable single- family home would be $60,000 to $65,000, depending upon the location and the kind of house. Mr. Lieua1len stated he is not convinced that condominiums would qualify as low-income housing. Mayor Keller noted that some condominiums could be rather fashionable housing. Ms. Miller stated agreement and felt that many condominiums would provide moderate- and high-income housing, but did not think they would provide low-income housing. She stated she feels the issue of the tax is a difficult one. The primary purpose of the tax would be to arrive at some possible solution for affordable available housing in Eugene. However, it may not be the fairest way of dealing with housing for low- or moderate-income people. Investors might not be willing to put their money into structures that might not be able to be converted to condominiums. She felt that encouraging the Joint Housing Committee to look at alternatives for providing low- and moderate-income housing might be better than the tax. She favored elimination of the tax, but felt that permit fees should cover admin- istrative costs. \ e Ms. Schue stated she is less certain that the Joint Housing Committee . can come up with solutions for low-income housing. Finding solutions to housing problems requires money and that is the difficult problem. She recognizes that they may be taxing a group that would be less able to pay. She felt that perhaps a lower tax would be an appropriate compromise. Mr. Obie stated he would rather see the council commit itself to attempting to spend more from the general fund for low- and moderate- income housing than tax a specific group. He feels it should be the responsibility of the community-at-large to pay. Converted condo- miniums are selling to low- and moderate-income people and new-built condominiums are selling to higher-income people. Converted condo- miniums are normally the less expensive condominiums. He feels people should be encouraged to build multi-family housing that can be con- verted later. - 6/11/80--6 e Mr. Delay stated that converted units do provide an opportunity for entry into ownership, but there is a displacement problem. There is sufficient reason to exempt certain situations, including coopera- tives, from the tax. He would be willing to back away from the tax if the council were willing to make funding for new housing a top priority. Mr. Lieuallen stated they will need to face the problem of inadequate rental housing in Eugene. Much money flows from the buyer to the developer and he would like to be able to tap that money, although it does not seem possible without passing this along to the consumer. He is not convinced that the council has total responsi- bility for dealing with the housing issue and would prefer to see that the person or group responsible for creating the problem pays for the solution. The council cannot always accept the responsibility for financing a solution to an identifiable problem. At the beginning of the condominium discussions, he had heard the attorneys say that the taxing authority of the council would be the cleanest, clearest, and most constitutionally supportable approach. That was why he had originally supported the tax, but other arguments would make him back away and eliminate the tax, especially for cooperatives. Ms. Smith noted her opposition to the tax has been known for several months. She has heard several good arguments supporting deletion of this tax. She feels that administrative costs should be paid by the converter. She does not feel the council has taken on housing as a priority to the degree which it could. In some other cases they have been able to make some progress in identified areas and so she would support this notion. Ms. Miller noted it seemed that the rationale for the tax was the need for money to develop low- and moderate-income housing. She feels that if there is a commitment to make up the money by general funds then elimination of the tax would be acceptable. She is not convinced that the addition of the tax would increase the price as converted units will be sold for as much money as they can at any particular time. This would become a long-term tax included in the total cost of the purchase, rather than a front-end cost. She would support elimination of the tax if there is agreement that the loss would be made up in general funds. Ms. Schue noted that the Joint Housing Committee has done a lot with the money that they have had through revenue sharing and Community Development funds. She noted the Joint .Housing Committee would be delighted to accept any general funding offered them. Mr. Henry indicated there are some Housing Landbanking funds included in the Tier 2 budget that will be before the voters on June 24. Ms. Niven stated that when people are going to do a conversion, they must be able to offer it on the open market for 70 to 80 percent of the cost of a single-family house. This will probably not affect low-income people, but rather the medium-income people. If Congress would approve some share of capital gains being returned, then that would be the money that they would like to try to tap. If the dif- ference between what is paid for the property and what it sells for e - 6/11/80--7 would come back to this area, it would help. It is not only the money that is an issue. Apartment construction in Eugene lags far behind the rest of the state. She feels it is either the lack of available land or the complicated regulations that cause this lag. 4It Tim Sercombe stated that some cooperatives would not be affected by some portions of the ordinance since they are regulated by the Federal government. In reference to low-income cooperatives, it is the opinion of the staff that they could not exist without Federal sub- sidies. There are Federal requirements such as warranties, engineer certificates, etc. This ordinance generally does not apply to student cooperatives, only to those converted to ownership. The ordinance also does not affect joint ownership of property. Staff feels a blanket exemption of co-ops would not be feasible. There are two basic types of cooperatives: the first is a market-share cooperative where a person would have the right to lease a housing unit from the corporation; the second is limited-equity co-ops where a person would buy in but cannot sell that share except back to the corporation. If limited-equity cooperatives are exempted, a line must be drawn. Displacement and tenant protection will still need to be considered. Staff has two options for council: 1) leave the ordinance the same; or 2) grant a partial exemption to a limited category of co-ops. There is not much experience in knowing what the results of the limited exemption would be. If there were a low-income non-equity cooperative, the staff would want that to apply only to non-profit corporations where if the corporation were dissolved, the proceeds would go to charity. There also should be no purchaser risk in this sort of situation. Staff feels that policies relating to the safety of purchasing cooperatives is the same as purchasing condominiums. e Mr. Lieual1en asked what effect elimination of the tax per unit would have on cooperatives. Mr. Sercombe responded that the tax and the permit fees would be the major impediments. There could be a different permit process for subsidized cooperatives since they would require less City staff time. Ms. Miller noted that leaving cooperatives in the ordinance and waiting until a study is done makes sense to her. This would give them some time see what costs would be involved. If a person is displaced in a cooperative, the person is still displaced; and the same policy should apply. Mr. Obie noted agreement with Ms. Miller. Mr. Delay requested response from the staff on concerns given in previous testimonies of Ms. Seal and Mr. Strong. Mr. Obie summarized council IS decision as being: 1) to accept the staff recommendations regarding deletion of the formula and use it only in an advisory capacity; 2) to eliminate the tax; and 3) to leave cooperatives in the ordinance, and to make housing a priority for the Joint Housing Committee. - 6/11/80--8 - e e B. Ms. Miller noted written testimony can be presented until Friday, June 13, at noon. It might be that some new issues would arise by that time. Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the formula itself might be the problem as it may be too complicated. Mr. Delay responded that the committee had spent much time on the formula development. He suggested that perhaps Ms. Niven could be of further assistance. Ordinances for Second Reading 1. Approval of Hearings Panel Minutes of June 2, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the Hearings Panel minutes of June 2, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Levy Assessments--Mr. Henry stated the following council bills were read the first time on May 27, 1980; they were referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 2, 1980; and are brought back for council consideration to levy assessments as proposed. Mr. Henry said these interest rates are going from seven percent to ten percent. Recommendations are still standing to levy the assessments. Ms. Smith indicated that some of the property owners were concerned with the interest rate increase from seven percent to ten percent. She added that it would take two-thirds of the council to agree to open this item up for a public hearing. Mr. Obie noted he would abstain on CB 2127, Nolan Industrial Park. Mr. Haws asked at what interest rate these would be assessed. Mr. Henry responded that the rate would be determined at the time of the bond sale. Staff could lower the interest rate if the bond sale is favorable. Mr. Haws asked at what interest rate these would be approved. Mr. Henry responded it would be ten percent. This would be justified and would apply to all future levies until Bancrofting bonds come down in their interest rate. Mr. Haws asked if people could either use this form of funding or they could borrow elsewhere. He was told that was correct. Ms. Smith noted that part of the problem is that the owners were told seven percent at a time when Bancroft bonds were available at a lower rate and now it is at ten percent. Mr. Obie noted that City costs are ten percent and that the City is charging only what it has to pay. If the City pays less, then the assessment is reduced. Mr. Oelay noted it is not accurate to say that a commit- ment was made for seven percent. That was only what the rate was at the time. Stan Long agreed that the City had not committed to a seven-percent interest rate. Ms. Schue stated that it is unfortunate that the memos were not clearer. There is a need for better public information. 6/11/80--9 Mayor Keller stated there were four requests to speak--consensus of the council was to not open these items to public hearing. CB 2090--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, ~ storm sewer, and pedestrian way within Clarey Plat First Addition ~ (79-2) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18641. CB 2126--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and stor~ sewer within Kiska Subdivision; sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the east margin if Kiska Subdivision; paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within Kukui Hill Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the east and south margins of Kukui Hill Subdivision (79-8) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18642. CB 2127--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer with i nand adj acent to No 1 an Industr i a 1 Park (79-9) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- ~ cilors present voted aye, with Mr. Obie abstaining; the bill .., was declared passed and numbered 18643. CB 2128--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way to serve Anton Subdivision and Amber Subdivision, and sanitary sewer construction within 160 feet of the east boundary of Anton Subdivision; and paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within Kerrick Subdivision, and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the north boundary of Kerrick Subdivision (79-13) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18644. CB 2129--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way in Seychelles West III Subdivision; and paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within Seychelles West IV Subdivision (79-18) -- 6/11/80--10 e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18645. CB 2130--An ordinance "levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Elizabeth Avenue from Jessen Drive to Beltline Road (79-21) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18646. CB 2131--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to Braewood Hills Subdivision (79-30) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18647. CB 2133--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Garfield Heights Subdivision; on Hayes Street from 25th Avenue to 25th Place; and on Garfield Street from 25th Place to approximately 300 feet south (79-20) e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18648. CB 2132--An ordinance levying assessments for paving sanitary sewer on . Seneca Road from 1st Avenue to 11th Avenue (78-29) was referred back to the Hearings Panel. III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPEALS FROM,DETERMINATIONS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARD BY THE HEARINGS PANEL ON APRIL 21, 1980 Findings from the Hearings Panel upholding the Zoning Board of Appeals decisions to: 1) grant a variance to the University Street Church of Christ at 2820 University Street; 2) deny a variance to allow relocation of an accessory workshop building addition to within two feet of an interior property line; and 3) deny a variance to allow the creation of an attached carport with no setback from an interior property line. e Mr. Delay said that one appeal deals with an accessory building. Neither he nor Ms. Smith could establish findings to support the variance request but neither did they feel that the way the property owner was dealt with was the proper way to handle a small outbuilding on a piece of property. Mr. Delay asked Bernard Gilkison, Public Works Department, if this item were moving toward resolution. Mr. Gilkison responded that it is. He had met with the owner and has some alternatives for him. 6/11/80--11 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the Hearings Panel minutes and adopt, as the council's own, the findings of fact as set forth in the minutes of April 21, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. ~ IV. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS Mr. Henry noted that there is a duplication in one of the court payments for $5,100, so the resolution would be amended to only include it once. Res. No. 3385--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period May 27, 1980, through June 9, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion as amended. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. V. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approve Council Minutes of May 21, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the council minutes of May 21, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously_ B. Finance Resolutions (memo distributed) Res. No. 3386--A resolution authorizing the transfer of operating contingency monies in the General Fund to cover purchase of safety equiPm~ Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Obie out of the chamber. Res. No. 3387--A resolution authorizing the transfer of non-contingency appropriations within a given fund between programs and/or object groups. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 'A. Supplemental Budget (memo and ordinance distributed)--Mr. Henry noted that the supplemental budget will involve two funds for a total of $36,500. The Airport Fund appropriation increases the total $32,000 for personnel services which will fund the new Eugene Fire Department Station 12. These appropriations are covered by an airline surcharge and the station is made necessary by the Federal Aviation Administra- tion. Transient Room Tax Fund appropriation increases total $4,500 which, is funded by increased room tax revenues and will be used for the Summer Festival of Music as approved by the Transient Room Tax Committee. ~ 6/11/80--12 Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. e CB 2150--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making appropria- tions for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1979, and ending June 30, 1980; and declaring an emergency Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors presenting voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18649. B. Street/Public Utility Easement Vacations 1. Street Vacation for Terry Stimac (SV 79-8) (map distributed) Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. ~ CB 2151--Authorizing vacation of a 20-foot-wide street located south of Sweetbriar Lane, east of East 43rd Avenue; and declaring an emergency Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors presenting voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18650. 2. Public Utility Easement Vacation for C. G. Investment Company (EV 78-14) (map distributed) Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2152--Authorizing vacation of a public utility easement located between Chambers Street and Garfield Street, northwest of 27th Place Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e 6/11/80--13 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors presenting voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered ~ 18651. ~ 3. Public Utility Easement Vacation for Mary C. Ralls (EV 79-15) (map distributed) Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2153--Authorizing vacation of a pUblic utility easement located north of 2nd Avenue, west of Taylor Street Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors presenting voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18652. 4. Public Utility Easement Vacation for Jim Hicks Enterprises (EV 79-16) (map distributed) Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. :CB 2154--Authorizing vacation of a public utility easement located east of Calgary Street north of Holly Avenue; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors presenting voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18653. :C. New Liquor License Outlets 1. Aunt Lucy Divine's (restaurant); located at 1348 Alder Street; applicant: Josephine Cole and Richard Young Ms. Miller noted she would abstain on this item. e 6/11/80--14 e There were no problems noted from staff on this application, but the neighborhood association is not supportive. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Grocery Cart #13 (package store license); located at 4010 Donald Street; applicant: Grocery Carts, Inc., Bill McCabe, President Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e VII. CONSIDERATION OF ENDORSEMENT OF JOINT APPLICATION WITH LANE COUNTY FOR HUD ENERGY INNOVATION GRANT (memo distributed) Mr. Henry introduced Greg Page, Technology Coordinator, to provide back- ground information. Mr. Page stated this is a request for the council to authorize staff to write a letter of endorsement on behalf of the Mayor and council for a joint City-County application for a Housing and Urban Development inno- vation grant for community energy conservation. Lane County will be the applicant and grantee. However, the majority of the grant funds, approx- imately $860,000 plus administrative costs, would be subcontracted to the City, which will administer the loans occurring within the city limits. The competition for this nationwide grant is great and a letter from the council would make the application more competitive. Mr. Page stated the grant would contain three major projects: 1) a low-interest loan program for the weatherization of apartment buildings having five or more attached living units; the EWEB residential con- servation service program was approved last week by the Eugene Water & Electric Board which will provide for a loan program for owner-occupied and investor-owned properties having four units or less after the required court tests and funding hurdles are overcome; 2) a low-interest loan program for energy conservation in small businesses through: a) water/ space heating/cooling/lighting; b) process modifications that conserve energy and/or use renewal resources; and 3) a county-wide energy infor- mation and referral service which would serve two functions. The first would be to coordinate the promotion and educational activities of the residential and commercial loan funds. The second would be to provide information referral to the general public on energy-related programs and services through the use of a centralized telephone number. e 6/11/80--15 Mr. Page stated that numerous organizations, including the Oregon Energy Extension Service, Eugene neighborhood associations, University of Oregon, I local realtors, and utility companies, are assisting in developing the ,projects. In addition, investor-owners of apartment buildings contacted e .. about the proposed low-interest program have responded positively and have i indicated a willingness to participate in the program. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to submit a letter to HUD in support of the of Eugene HUD innovation grant application. motion carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed to the McNutt Room for continuation of the agenda. to authorize the Mayor joint Lane County/City Roll call vote; VIII..METRO PLAN UPDATE Jim Farah, Planning, stated that at the June 17 meeting, it is the hope of the Metro Team that all three juriSdictions will agree on a consensus which the Elected Officials Coordinating Committee has reached. On June 24, there will be another joint meeting and they are expecting to have the plan adopted at that meeting. They met with the LCDC representative on June 10 and July 1 is still the deadline for submission of the plan. The first major change in urban and urbanizable land (phasing and surplus land) is on page II-D-1. The Willow Creek Basin can accommodate more than the project population. It is not reasonable to develop only half the basin at a time; the need is to plan for the whole basin at once. That I basin is the trade-off for the land in Santa Clara if Lane County and e Eugene cannot agree on the annexation of Santa Clara by the mid-1980's. ,i There are major political problems with annexing Santa Clara. Mayor Keller noted this would be an issue on June 12. Mr. Delay asked for clarification regarding the questions that were raised regarding EWEB1s 'planning. Steve Gordon, L-COG, stated that LCDC Goal 14 has seven cri- . teria, one of which is public need, based on a 20-year projection. : Another is the orderly provision of public services. Social and envir- onmental consequences and other items are the other criteria. It is said by some that an urban growth boundary that contains more land than what would be based on that need would be in violation of that goal. They are : trying to plan for efficient public service delivery, especially gravity- based services. School District 4-J and EWEB have concerns that if the urban growth boundary contains more land than is needed in 20 years there would be time problem and they would not be able to serve this area within the next five or ten years. They would like to have assurances that capital improvements will not be required faster than they can afford them and would prefer to see phased development. Mr. Farah noted that this would be phased development, even if the plan is done all at one time. " Mr. Gordon noted these were the major points raised at the public hearing and they would have material to the councilors by June 13 or June 16. . 6/11/80--16 e Mr. Farah noted that on page II-D-2 there would be a three-year supply of developable land, a three-year supply of undeveloped lots, mostly large lots. This would work toward maintaining the inventory of land. On page II-D-3, regarding geographic phasing of Santa Clara, Willow Creek, and East Thurston, they would agree that the land is appropriate for ultimate conversion from urbanizable to urban land upon annexation to the city. The areas have been primarily designated for low-density residential use. A full range of minimum-level key urban services are not in place now and are not scheduled for at least the next five years. The areas are not needed to meet low-density urban needs in the metropolitan area for at least the next five years, or sometime after 1985. There is a need to include these areas within the urban growth boundary so public service and facility planning may proceed to eventually extend services to these areas. e Mr. Lieuallen stated he would like reaction from the council regarding the River Road/Santa Clara area since it is a very emotional issue and there are numbers of people focusing on that issue primarily rather than on crime or unemployment in the section of the county. He has concerns and would like to get at Santa Clara for an inventory of land presupposing sewers. If sewers were not installed, the only other way that this area could be annexed would be to create an island of River Road which is really not the area that the council is interested in. This is a larger area of land that could be developed and River Road could be annexed to get at Santa Clara. Santa Clara has every service they want now with the exception of sewers which would be the only control the City has. He does not feel the residents need or want sewers because they do not want to be annexed. Septic tank systems could be upgraded or maintained. He noted he had requested last week to be allowed to sit in for the Mayor on the coordinating committ~e again and was told today that it would be a bad idea since it would be awkward politically for him. Mayor Keller responded he and Ms. Miller felt it would be better for Mr. Lieuallen not to be forced into taking a position, or upholding the City's position which might not be the same position that he would choose to uphold at a later time. Mr. Farah stated that from the staff viewpoint, River Road is not intended to be an entree into Santa Clara; the division is Beltline and there are lots of differences between the two areas. Urban deve 1 op- ment should be provided through cities. Mr. Delay noted that a lot of things exist that have existed from time to time, but just because bad planning happened in the past is no excuse for bad planning for the future. Council consensus was that they did not wish to annex Santa Cl ara. Mr. Lieuallen stated he supports the City's position on not providing sewers without annexation and if the City does not wish to force annexa- tion, then perhaps this need not be discussed again until the people on River Road decide that they want sewers. Sewers are the only matter of services which they do not already have. Mr. Obie noted there are also e 6/11/80--17 : problems with EWEB, since it provides a substantial portion of the elec- itrical supply to that area. Ms. Miller noted that if there would be a weatherization program done through EWEB to city residents there would be no method of controlling that in the River RoadlSanta Clara area. There- 4It fore, the City cannot have the impact on the rate base that they would like to have. Mr. Henry noted that the double taxation issue becomes more acute as time passes. Mayor Keller noted that many comments have been made by people who are misinformed and they are concerned about the costs that annexation would bring. They are trying to get answers together for ithe people and Lane County has asked the City to put together informa- tional items for the people in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Counc lor Obie left the meeting. :1 : In response to Mr. Lieuallen's question about the status of the study, Mr. I Farah responded that the draft is in Word Processing and would be reviewed by Public Works, the Manager's Office, and the council. The plan does not state there will be annexation. Mr. Delay noted that large costs with annexation would primarily be the sewers and that service districts are not necessarily any cheaper. Councilor Miller left the meeting. Mr. Lieuallen noted that the urban services situation probably will not be .. settled until River Road is settled and that LCDC will probably not support an island situation. Mr. Lieuallen wants the council to work very , hard to reso 1 ve th is matter. 1 Mr. Henry left the meeting. Mr. Farah noted that if River Road does not want to annex, then develop- ment in the River Road/Santa Clara area will not happen. Mayor Keller noted it might be good for them. Mr. Farah stated that if River Road were annexed tomorrow, charges and services would not necessarily begin tomorrow-- I they are still putting in curbs and gutters in the Bethel-Danebo area. Mayor Keller noted this would be phased annexation and they would not start paying for improvements until they started receiving improvements. e , Mr. Gordon stated that there is no such thing as an interim sewage device because it more than likely would become permanent. There is less than a " one-year supply of 1 and in the River Road area; a two-year supply in Santa Clara. Mr. Lieuallen asked if he felt there could be the possibility of a County service district. Mr. Gordon said annexation or a County service district would be the two logical alternatives. Mayor Keller stated that in the event that improvements were made after annexation then they could qualify for the senior citizens' deferred assessments. Unfortunately, they never got to tell them that. ~ 6/11/80--18 e e e Mr. Farah noted that the Airport is the other big issue. The County concurs with the City that the Airport must be protected and that devel- opment could hurt it. They do not want the City to deflate prices of surrounding land. Mr. Farah noted that the industrial area by the Airport is not within the urban growth boundary and this could provide land for Airport-related activities. He noted that on page III-F-7, Item 16, they could add "at fair market value" so that the City would purchase privately owned land necessary for Airport improvement or that would have no other reasonable use because of controls placed to protect the Airport and they would add "at fair market value." It would be expensive to buy the land; Clear Lake Estates alone probably would cost about $6.2 million. The City put in money last year for drainage to that area. The urban growth area would not be expanding north of Royal or west of Highway 99. A study was done near Clear Lake Estates about Airport noise. Residents were told that it would last for five weeks and at the end of that time when the study went to a few days over, they started receiving calls. It will be made clear that development cannot be allowed around the Airport. The meeting was adjourned to June 18, 1980. R~U:)~ Charles T. Henry City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:so/CM27a1 ~ 6/11/80--19