Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1980 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber October 27, 1980 8 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Brian Obie, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilors Eric Haws and Scott Lieuallen were absent. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. 1. ACTIVE CITIZENS RECOGNITION Mayor Keller thanked Carol Baker, Community Relations Director, and staff for the outstanding Citizens' Night at City Hall. He thanked the citizens who came to find out what citizenry is all about. On behalf of the council, he thanked everyone who has served on boards and commissions. Mr. Henry commended Carol Baker's leadership in this event and the board and commission members who e assisted her. The Mayor indi cated that the counci 1 goal-setting sess ion was Thursday evening, Friday, and Saturday. Energy conservation was named as the number one goal set by the council, followed by economic development, downtown housing, capital projects, development of the central business area, and civic center. Also discussed were intergovernmental 'relationships and double taxation. II. BALLOT MEASURE 6: TAX LIMITATION PROPOSAL--STAFF PRESENTATION (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this item has been discussed briefly at previous meetings. The purpose of having it on the agenda is to increase the awareness of the City so there is some understanding about this drastic measure. The poll indicates that it could still win. Ballot Measure 6 would nullify the Eugene Plan. If it were in effect in 1977-78, it would have reduced property tax collection in Eugene by about $8 million. It would severely impact services. This is much more drastic than California's Proposition 13 since Oregon does not have surplus funds as in California. Oregon cities are heavily dependent upon property tax, e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 1980 Page 1 - with no sales or utility taxes. Also, in California, the proportion of govern- ment funded by property tax is much lower. The lack of an existing surplus in Oregon, combined with no other taxes, would make for a very difficult situation. He introduced Paget Engen, Policy Analyst, to provide background information. Ms. Engen stated that in the councilors' packets, they received calculations of what this measure would cost in revenues. Tonight, during Open House, a one-page flyer was available showing the impact on City services. Ballot Measure 6 would limit choices of services. It is a constitutional amendment and cannot be changed by the Legislature. It covers all classes of property, not just principal residences. Sixty percent of those properties taxed are income- producing properties. This would not replace the six-percent limitation, but is an additional limitation. If passed, it would be effective July 1981. If this measure was in effect in 1980-81, Eugene would have lost about $11 million, 83 percent of the property tax levied. This would be a cut of about 35-40 percent in general operating revenues and 300-500 positions would be cut from existing City staff. Unemployment benefit costs would be substantial. Ballot Measure 6 distinguishes between essential and other services. Police and fire services, deemed to be essential, would be supported at the 1977-78 level, and other services would need to be cut by one third before police and fire services could be cut further. Since 1977-78, the City of Eugene has annexed a good deal of land, the population has grown, and inflation has been a large factor. This would riot allow for a reasonable level of service in comparison with 1977-78. A majority of police services would be emergency services, and e resources for other services such as crime prevention would have to be pulled away to cover situations that were emergencies. A 35-percent cut in the Police Department's Patrol Division would only allow for 6-8 officers in the field two thirds of the time and ten officers during critical times. The police would continue to respond immediately to priority 1 calls, which are those with continued harm to life or property. Priority 2 calls might be delayed for up to 40 minutes. Criminal intelligence would be deleted. The Detective Division would need to cut back services. The Fire Department would be similarly affected. There are eight fire stations now, with a ninth being added, but the City would only be able to operate five of the nine for the amount of money received in 1977-78. They would either close stations or reduce their status to satellite stations and maintain ser- vices to dense and industrial areas. In less densely populated areas, response time could take up to ten minutes instead of the four-minute average response time now. If police and fire services are cut, that would mean a 50-percent cut in all other departments. If the voters pass this, it means they do not want services they are now receiving. She added that it would take approval of two thirds of the voters to pass any additional tax. In regard to other cuts, Ms. Engen stated that although the Public Works Department budget is largely fee supported, such as with building permits, a large portion of their budget is for operating. Installation and maintenance of traffic signals, leaf pickup, sidewalk and street repair, traffic safety programs, e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 1980 Page 2 e and handling sign code violations would be dropped. In the Parks and Recreation Department, what would happen to the fee-supported programs is not clear, but the pools and centers would be closed for a portion of the year. Unless some other method of financing would be found, the closures could result in a 4-6 month closure per facility per year. The pools could be sold to a private interest. A 35-percent cut in the Library would reduce their open hours to 35 per week. These programs make up about three quarters of the City's general operating budget. Mr. Hamel asked what the difference is between the 30-percent refund currently given and Ballot Measure 6. Mr. Engen responded that because the State program is only for principal residences, that benefit is more advantageous to residents but not to the commercial or industrial sector. Mr. Henry noted that about one third of these cuts would be moneys retained by the State and Federal govern- ments, instead of locally, which would give the State and Federal governments more money because property taxes would be less. Ms. Engen stated that there would be a long-range impact on community use of credit. Ballot Measure 6 limits a community's ability to go into debt to pay for capital projects. Debt that is already incurred (bonds that have already been sold) would be exempted. Future bonds would be subject to the tax limita- tion. State laws regarding tax increments from the urban renewal area would have to be reviewed. The City of Eugene would lose about $770,000 of the current $1.1 million. There would be an impact on many other City projects. The Hilton Hotel/conference center contract would need to be renegotiated. The e Metro Wastewater Project may be terminated. Because of federal requirements and difficulty with EPA grants, only $8 million of these bonds have been sold. Unfortunately, the Legislative Revenue Committee assumed there were no special districts within cities, but Metropolitan Wastewater is a special district. The City assists in financing public improvements by selling construction warrants and then sells Bancrofting bonds to pay the warrants. Bancroft and general obligation bonds will not be allowed with Ballot Measure 6. Housing and develop- ment costs would rise. This would require assessments to be passed by a two- thirds vote and the City would be liable for payment of the warrants. Another way would have to be found to finance public improvements. The decision to make regarding Ballot Measure 6 is whether the savings in property-tax charges would be worth the lack of services. Mr. Delay stated that the facts indicate that the community would be unable to handle its own affairs and the decision making would be given to the State and Federal government. A minority of the people, due to the two-thirds vote requirement, would tyrannize the majority. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the City Council go on record in opposition to Ballot Measure 6. Ms. Smith noted that this council is concerned about the amount of moneys being spent. She is not happy to think that fire and police protection can become serious problems. She is also concerned about funding for immediate projects such as Metro Wastewater. She feels the council should continue to present good budgets that are not excessive to the citizens. She hopes the council will e support the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 1980 Page 3 - -- . e Ms. Schue stated that it is discouraging to think that Oregon citizens have even considered a measure like this one. She feels confident that when people know what the measure could do, that they will not vote for it, and she has faith in the citizens. Mayor Keller noted that the State of Oregon does not have a surplus of funds and that the State Legislature has been responsive to surpluses in the past which brought about a 30-percent tax relief program. He feels that the citizens of Eugene will realize that these services are important to them and that voting against this measure will be in their best interest. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD--STAFF PRESENTATION (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this project would extend Roosevelt Boulevard to Beltline Road from its present terminus west of Highway 99. This project conforms to the T-2000 Plan and provides a through-traffic alternative for trucks, rather than the use of residential streets. It also enhances access to the industrial area in combination with a flood-control channel parallel to and north of the Roosevelt extension which would clearly separate industrial from residential land use. Incorporated in this project is an off-street bicycle path adjacent to the channel on the north side of the Roosevelt extension. He introduced e Don Gilman, Public Works, to provide additional information. . Mr. Gilman stated that the concept was initiated in 1977 anq public hearings were held. In September 1979, the council approved Federal Aid Urban agreements on this project in conjunction with State and Federal governments. They have prepared an environmental assessment report. At Petersen Park Barn Community Center this evening, a public hearing is being held as a requirement of the Oregon State Action Plan regarding the environmental assessment report and design treatment. A finalized report can, it is hoped, be submitted to ODOT and FHWA concluding that the project will have no significant environmental impacts. If approved by these agencies as "Finding of No Significant Impact," staff can then proceed. Because of a shortage of funds, this project will have to be implemented in phases. The Beltline to Bertelsen Road phase will be done in 1981; and Bertelsen Road to Highway 99 will be done in 1981-82 or later. Additional information will be brought back at a later date. IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY: AN ANALYSIS OF OTHER CITIES (memo distributed) Mr. Henry 'noted that this report includes an analysis of other cities and has been reviewed by the Planning Department. He introduced Jim Farah and Jim Carlson, Planning, to provide additional information. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 1980 Page 4 ----- ~ Mr. Farah stated that issues regarding growth management were identified in ~ the council goal-setting session. The council continues to be aware of the need to manage growth, as too little or no growth could raise difficult issues. Eugene has no growth-limit policy. Eugene's policy since 1972, with approval of the 1990 Plan, has been to manage growth geographically. This report deals with the socio-economic systems of growth management. The community has addressed this issue in the Metro Plan. Eugene and Springfield have supported having a study done for the mentropolitan area on a growth rate management system. Lane County has been less supportive. The impact of a growth management system that shifts growth into the metropolitan areas could mean a lack of a tax base and other difficult i.es. Any growth management rate system must go beyond the urban growthboundarTes~here is a need to know how much land will be necessary to accommodate growth in a timely manner. Economic development can occur with the City's policy. This report was developed by Economic Consultants Oregon, Ltd., after looking at various cities. In Ramapo, New York, there was no growth rate system; rather, they used geo- graphic management for development of services. Although no limits to growth were established, services were only provided to certain areas, which has resulted in a shift in growth away from the city. Boca Raton, Florida,was a population capital. The growth policy of the city caused them to go to court. There has been a shift in growth to nearby communities. In Boulder, Colorado, they have a point system like Petaluma, California, which also causes a shift to nearby jurisdictions but allows for slow growth. Petaluma's system is based upon geographic management of the rate of growth based on the number of building permits issued, which has caused higher housing prices and a shift of growth. ~ In Davis, California, a change in building permit criteria has created a new shift toward multi-family dwellings. Fresno, California, has no system. In San Jose, California, the geographic management system has caused an exten- sion of the urban services. In Salem, Oregon, geographic management has caused inter-agency extension of services. Staff concurs that growth rate management has effects on the surrounding communities as well as within the city. It also sets up commuting patterns. Mr. Carlson stated that no one seems to have done the type of analysis that the council is interested in, probably because there is not easily available data. The 1980 census data will be available soon. He distributed preliminary Lane County data which shows the preliminary population counts and percentages with change from 1970 to 1980. On the basis of this information, he said it appears that some growth has shifted to the surrounding communities. This may have already occurred due to the council.s growth-rate policies. The census data should give more accurate information. Eugene has a better monitoring system. Since 1977, they have been developing an inventory of developable 1 and. Mr. Delay asked why North Springfield and River Road are shrinking. Mr. Carlson responded that these areas were developed in the 1960's with less development in the 1970's. There is also a decline in household size. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 1980 Page 5 ~ 'A e V. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS (distributed) Mr. Henry stated Resolution No. 3435 will be amended to include an invoice for a Circuit Court award for Southern Pacific Transportation Company vs. City of Eugene for $25,947.18. Res. No. 3435--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period October 13, 1980, through October 27, 1980, as amended. Mr. Henry indicated that the addition was for a judicial decision from a case that began in 1970. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution, as amended. Mr. Delay asked for clarification. Mr. Henry responded that in the 1960's, a street improvement project was undertaken for Southern Pacific. The City built the road, assessing Southern Pacific. They paid the assessment, but under protest. They took it to court and it went on to appeals court. A deci sion was reached last week. Mr. Gilman noted that this is a portion off First Avenue west of Seneca Road. The County accepted dedication from Southern Pacific in 1945 under the condition that the County or future assigns would not place charges against Southern Pacific for improvements. This land became the City's in the 1960's when they accepted jurisdiction for the annexed area. The City e was not aware of the condition and billed Southern Pacific for the street improvements. Southern Pacific paid those assessments and are now requesting reimbursement. This had gone through circuit court and the court of appeals. Mr. Delay asked why the condition had not been known. Mr. Gilman responded that this is a very unusual case and was part of the Bethel-Danebo area package when it was annexed. The City had no reason to suspect this condition. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to October 29, 1980. , Respectfully submitted, ~J~ Charles T. Henry City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:LN:sba/CM7al e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 1980 Page 6