Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1981 Meeting . e e s M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber April 8, 1981 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, Eric Haws, and Emily Schue. ABSENT: Councilor Brian Obie and Mayor Gus Keller. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Her Honor Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Scheduling of Meetings Councilor Hamel requested that staff organize the councilors' meetings so that several meetings were not scheduled at the same time. Mr. Gleason stated that staff would respond to this concern. B. Potential Hazardous Wastes Councilor Wooten was concerned about the prior landfill on Bloomberg Road that existed before the City of Eugene made application to the Department of Environ- mental Quality for its use. There is a possible danger since that site was included in a report from EPA to the 96th Congress. It has been cited as one of 30,000 hazardous waste dump sites in the country. Perhaps water testing and soil testing are in order to determine if there is leaching into the subsurface well water of nearby residents. Mr. Whitlow clarified that this is not the site where they are currently depositing gravel but rather a lower site--the old County landfill. He said he had instructed the Parks & Recreation Department to have the area tested as soon as possible, either by Lane County or by DEQ. If this does not work, they will take other avenues to get the problem solved as soon as possible. C. Report on Potential Acquisition of Lincoln School Ms. Wooten requested that a report be given on the potential acquisition of Lincoln School by the City of Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City CounciJ~_ April 8, 1981 Page 1 e D. Appointments 1. Sign Code Board of Appeals Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to appoint Larry Chamberlain to the Sign Code Board of Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Construction Code Board of Appeals Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that E. L. Burgess be appointed to the Construction Code Board of Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Mayor's Traffic Safety Commission Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to appoint Robert J. Pellico to the Traffic Safety Commission. Motion carried unanimously. E. Announcements e 1. City of Eugene and Eugene Police Employees' Association Salary Agreement Manager introduced Gary Long, Staff Services Director. Mr. Long announced that the City of Eugene had reached a salary agreement with the Eugene Police Employees' Association. Bruce Mulligan, the City's labor negotiator, was present to answer questions, as well as Frank Gallick, representative of the Eugene Police Employees' Association, who served as chair of the negotiating committee. The agreement is an 8.S-percent wage adjustment effective July 1, 1981. It represents a budgetary cost to the City of $398,000. It includes an adjustment to the hospital room rates for employees affected. Bruce Mulligan noted appreciation for the professional, responsible manner in which the association approached the negotiations. There were a number of differences, but he felt the association and management were able to con- structively resolve those differences, which resulted in the agreement before the council. Frank Gallick said, on behalf of the association, working with Mr. Mulligan had been a pleasure. They had reached, for the first time in the annals of the association, an early agreement for which they were very happy. Mr. Lindberg added that congratulations were in order for all parties involved for what seemed to be an extremely fair and reasonable agreement. Ms. Miller expressed appreciation for all the hard work of Mr. Mulligan and Mr. Gallick and all the people who had worked with them on the process. lilt is not an easy chore,1I she said. lilt deserves a lot of praise and credit from the public for the work that they have done.1I e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Apri 1 8, 1981 Page 2 e Mr. Gleason added that it was really refreshing to be dealing with employee representatives such as the association, who take a professional attitude to the responsibility. It makes the job a great deal easier because they sit down at the table attempting to solve problems and not to denigrate each other or to get into a dialogue that is nonconstructive. It is refreshing and speaks well for the organization. 2. New Intern--City Manager's Office Mr. Gleason introduced Kirsten Jones who has a background in research, data processing, and with neighborhood groups. She will intern spring and summer terms. 3. Council Dinner Session, April 13, 1981 The council work session at 5 p.m. on April 13, 1981, at the Trawler will focus on economic development. Ms. Miller noted that they were accepting suggestions for topics for the May work session. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of Council Minutes of January 26, 1981, and February 11, 1981, and Council Work Session Minutes of February 9, 1981 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to approve council minutes of January 26, 1981, February 11, 1981, and council work session minutes of February 9, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. e B. Approval of Legislative Subcommittee Minutes of March 19 and April 2 Distributed by Special Courier Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to approve the minutes of the Legislative Subcommittee of March 19 and April 2, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. C. Calls for Public Hearing 1. Easement Vacations a. Easement Vacation for Edgewood Mountain III Tract E (EV 80-10) (map and report distributed) CB 2261--An ordinance calling for a public hearing May 20, 1981; re: easement vacation for Edgewood Mountain III Tract E for property located on the east side of Brookside Drive, west of Willamette Street. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, 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, with Mr. Haws abstaining. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 3 . Council Bill 2261 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye except Mr. Haws, who abstained, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18768. b. Easement vacation for Capital Management Company (EV 80-11) [map and report distributed) CB 2262--An ordinance calling for a public hearing for May 20, 1981; re: easement vacation for Capital Management Company for property located on the east side of Willakenzie Road north of Cal Young Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, 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, with Mr. Haws abstaining. Council Bill 2262 was read the second time by council bill number only. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, with Mr. Haws abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18769. 2. Proposed ordinance concerning the relationship between the council and EWEB regarding the disposition of real property (memo and ordinance distributed) CB 2263--An ordinance relating to the Eugene Water & Electric Board; amending Sections 2.190 and 2.195 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Gleason introduced the council bill and resolution confirming the council's previous action with regard to the authorization of the conveyance of Gillespie Butte property to their disposition. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to call a public hearing for April 15, 1981, to consider a proposed ordinance concerning the relationship between the Eugene City Council and the Eugene Water & Electric Board regarding disposition of real property. Ms. Smith recognized members of the EWEB Board in the audience. She noted that this was not a public hearing. They were calling for a public hearing. She suggested that with the approval of the council, they hear from Mr. Tiffany, President of EWEB; council approved. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 4 e e . John Tiffany, President, EWEB Board, explained the board has postponed its next meeting until April 13, 1981, to discuss the council action today. He felt it was inappropriate to schedule a public hearing at a noon meeting since the time constraints of the council will not permit all the testimony which people may want to present to the council. He suggested that the council consider an evening meeting so that there is adequate time. It is a matter of importance to the EWEB Board and to the council as well. The board has a meeting scheduled on April 13 and any date thereafter would be better for them. Ms. Smith noted that council's practice in the past was to try to hold public hearings in the evening, particularly when there is a high degree of interest on the subject. She asked the City Manager if it was possible to encourage consider- ation of the date. Manager replied the council could change it. Ms. Smith, with the approval of the second, amended her motion to change the date from April 15 to April 27, 1981. John Craig, EWEB Board member, suggested the City Council and the EWEB Board have a general meeting to discuss the resolution and ordinance. He felt that many important issues are tied together. The EWEB Board President and the City Manager could explain the differences between the whole groups. They could then break into working subcommittees. He said the City is currently taking an action that does not follow the charter or the history of good relations with the board. This general meeting could forestall the possibility of legal or unconstitutional ordinances and resolutions as they understand each other better. Ms. Wooten and Ms. Schue approved of Mr. Craig's suggestion that the EWEB Board and the City Council have a joint meeting. Mr. Craig explained that a group of citizens is proposing an initiative petition for the purchase of the butte. If that occurs, elected bodies are under an obligation to look at the petition and give the voters an opportunity. This is a new development. Ms. Smith approved the idea, but stressed the importance for Mr. Gleason and Mr. Parks to have an agreed-upon agenda. She asked for a response from staff. Mr. Gleason approved the idea and felt that the agenda should include full discussion of all issues in an attempt to find a win-win solution. He felt that the arrangement could be worked out if council so wished. He suggested the sCheduling of a public hearing date. He understood that EWEB could not delay because of cash-flow problems. Mr. Tiffany suggested that council go ahead and pass the resolution. If there was a petition being passed, the board would be responsive. The cash-flow position had not changed any. They would like the authority to go ahead and seek a buyer for Gillespie Butte. They will delay a transfer if it appears to be a successful petition campaign. Mr. Lindberg noted approval of the joint meeting and suggested a task force to get into greater detail of the resolution. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 5 e Ms. Miller explained that if they pass the resolution and there was an initiative petition, it would be the EWEB Board's responsibility to decide how to dispose of the butte. It would not come back to the City Council. If they did not pass the resolution, they would be faced with a new set of constraints. She did not see the setting up of a hearing as closing the options to modifying the ordinance or resolution. Motion calling for public hearing April 27 to consider proposed ordinance concerning the relationship between the City Council and EWEB regarding the disposition of real property passed unanimously. D. Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of Gillespie Butte Property (memo and resolution distributed) Res. No. 3490--A resolution authorizing conveyance of Gillespie Butte property. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to adopt the resolution. e Ms. Wooten mentioned the initiative petition and said she continues to support the preservation of Gillespie Butte as a historic landmark, as a unique view point, and as an all-important urban sanctuary for people, birds, and wildlife. She sympathized with the cash-flow crisis of the EWEB Board. She believed that it would be in the public's best interest to postpone adoption of the resolution until it was determined that an initiative can or cannot successfully be placed on the ballot. Otherwise they may be preventing the initiative process which is contrary to how they believe government and business should be conducted in Oregon. The second issue was that she agreed with Mr. Craig that it could be postponed on the grounds of a second meeting with EWEB. Out of that meeting, there could come a renewed working agreement and the agenda could provide new options and solutions to the problem. She would vote against the resolution. Ms. Schue agreed that the initiative process was important. She said the EWEB Board was the group of responsible elected officials involved. She was willing to put the responsibility where it belonged--with the EWEB Board. She was willing to pass the resolution and put her confidence in the EWEB Board that they would act responsibly in this matter. Mr. Lindberg reiterated the position of Ms. Schue, in that there should be a separation of issues of Gillespie Butte and disposition of the property. He was in full support of the initiative to preserve the property. They had come to the determination that the City did not want to purchase the property for development by the City and therefore it was incumbent upon the council to go forward. He would vote in favor. Mr. Haws did not want his no vote to be interpreted that he did not have faith in the EWEB Board. He was voting no for reasons stated by Ms. Wooten. He stated he was sorry to see the City of Eugene pay for things the whole region uses. He viewed this as a device, assuming EWEB raises the rates, to have e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 6 - everyone under the system pay for Gillespie Butte, including those in the River Road area. He would like to see the butte as a park paid for by everyone, not just by the citizens of Eugene. He is voting no because he feels it should be regionally supported. Ms. Miller hoped that the property would be a park. It is an irreplaceable asset. It became clear to her that the water utility needs the proceeds from the sale of that property. That is money that the City does not presently have. It is appropriate to sign off on the property. The EWEB Board is aware of the petition. She wanted to make it clear that the process that they tried to follow has been to determine that once property is determined by the EWEB Board to be surplus to the utility, they need to review it for the possibility of other public uses, viewing the property as a public trust asset, held by the public, for public use. General purpose government can review how that trust asset is held and how it might be best used for the public. The best use for Gillespie Butte appears to be to sell it to meet the cash-flow needs of the water utility. If circumstances change by the initiative petition which the EWEB Board will consider, if they decide to authorize the sale of the property, she favored going ahead and having the City Manager sign off on the deed. Motion carried, 5:2, with Mr. Haws and Ms. Wooten voting no. Ms. Miller referred to the letter from the council to the EWEB Board and asked the councilors to approve it. All councilors present endorsed the letter. E. Supplemental Budget (memo and ordinance distributed) e Mr. Gleason explained this ordinance for a supplemental City budget. It reaffirms the previous decision before the Budget Committee with regard to the adjustment to the recreation fees, the establishing a rehabilitation trust account, the revisions in the Room Tax program, the settlement of the lawsuit, and the work with regard to cultural activities. CB 2264--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making appro- priations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1980, and ending June 30, 1981; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, 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 Council Bill 2264 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18770. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 7 e III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. New Liquor License Outlet--Sizzler Family Steak House (retail malt beverage); located at 405 Pacific Highway North; applicant: Double S Foods, Thomas Schott Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to forward to OLCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions if any. Motion carried unanimously. B. New Liquor License Outlet--Sizzler Family Steak House (retail malt beverage); located at 62 Centennial Loop; applicant: Double S Foods, Thomas Schott Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to forward to OLCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions if any. Motion carried unanimously. C. New Liquor License Outlet--Sizzler Family Steak House (retail malt beverage); located at 68 West 29th Street; applicant: Double S Foods, Thomas Schott e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to forward to OLCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions if any. Motion carried unanimously. D. New Liquor License Outlet--New China House (retail malt beverage); located at 80 East 29th; applicant: New China House Incorporated, Sik-Jim Quan Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to forward to OLCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions if any. Motion carried unanimously. E. New Liquor License Outlet--Burton1s Restaurant (restaurant); located at 854 East 13th Street; applicant: Russell J. Burton Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to forward to OLCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions if any. Motion carried unanimously. F. New Liquor License Outlet--The Terrace Cafe (retail malt beverage); located at 490 Valley River Center; applicants: Walid G. Saleeby and Donald M. Niffenegger Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to forward to OLCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions if any. Motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April R, 1981 Page 8 e IV. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON RACIAL HARASSMENT PROTECTIONS (memo distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Kent Gorham, Human Rights Specialist for the City. Mr. Gorham explained that this item appeared on the agenda in response to recent incidents of harassment. It came at the request of the Human Rights Council and ,the Eugene Chapter of the NAACP. In the last two months, residents of Eugene have received racist articles and letters. Others have had their homes defaced, property tampered with, and have received unsolicited emergency equipment calls as a result of their minority status. The Salem and Portland areas have been experiencing similar incidents of racial harassment toward minority group members within the last four months. The State Legislature is considering four bills which would provide civil and criminal penalties upon conviction of harassment against a person because of a person's class status. The Human Rights Commissions and the Legislative Subcommittee have indicated their support for appropriate State legislation to combat future incidents. The Human Rights Council, coordinating body for the five Human Rights Commissions, met last week to discuss the appropriate vehicle to the City to ensure continued protection for human rights. Mr. Gorham introduced Baruch Fischhoff, chairman of the Human Rights Council, and Willie Polite, president of the Eugene Chapter of the NAACP. Mr. Fischhoff explained that the Human Rights Council had discussed the acts of harassment and determined to bring it before the City Council. He read a statement that expressed the sentiment of that meeting. The statement called for leadership and the council's continued effort to lend weight to these human rights issues. He decried the hateful scattering of people that would harass a person because of race, religion, national origin, lifestyle, or sex. He suggested that council hold a public hearing. The hearing, he suggested, might give temporary encouragement to harassers, but he believed a hearing would show them that they are in the minority and make this a new ending for hatred and intolerance. Mr. Polite asked the City Council to pass an ordinance. He said everyone was against harassment. Since the Green incident, the mail at his house has included 200 letters and 75 phone calls with sympathy for the victims. Prejudice is an everyday occurrence in Eugene, but letters and phone calls are bad. He said there are people who are afraid. An ordinance would help to eliminate fear. Other families are experiencing harassment. Ms. Green wanted the citizens to know the Eugene Branch of the NAACP is asking the council to pass an ordinance to make acts of harassment a criminal offense. None of the current ordinances protect the families from what they are experiencing. Ms. Miller asked council if they would like to hear from others who would like to testify. Ms. Smith asked whether, if council directed staff to prepare a new ordinance, a public hearing would occur at the time of its passage. Mr. Long said that that is tradition of the council and that is the way staff behaves unless directed otherwise. Ms. Smith favored hearing from a few people. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 9 e e e Mr. Lindberg noted that this kind of harassment appears to be a wave throughout the country. He speculated on its cause. He said it was incumbent upon the council to indicate that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated. He supported the suggestion that they draft an ordinance to consider a refinement to the City Code. Ms. Schue observed that the council appeared to be in support of an ordinance that would indicate that Eugene was a humane and caring place for everyone who wants to live in the city. She favored hearing from those who would like to testify. Jane Alward, 2100 Madison, wished to inform the council on the kinds of racial harassment that could occur. A year or so ago, she applied for a permit in the downtown mall for a group to speak on Mother's Day. In going through the process of getting the signatures on the cards, she asked someone what the insurance performance bond was for and she told that it was required for situations like when the black students from the campus came around and wanted to hold a cele- bration on Martin Luther King1s birthday, trying to make it a national holiday. Staff was afraid that a group opposing them would come in and there would be trouble. So they would want to have an insurance bond in force. She feels that is the kind of discrimination that the ordinance should address and that the City Council should concern itself with. Council should be aware that someone whose salary is paid by the City is making that kind of statement. She would like City employees to be aware of the problem. The statement was not said with any kind of malice. It was a statement of someone's feelings. Ms. Wooten added her support for development of an ordinance. She asked if Mr. Lindberg expected the ordinance to apply to all kinds of minority group harassment. He said that that was entirely reasonable. He did not wish to be explicit at this time, but wished to direct staff to explore possibilities. Ms. Miller suggested that this go to the Human Rights Council and commissions as well as Human Rights staff and to the City Attorney. She was unsure whether they would want to hold a public hearing or how they would approach it. She felt that they were in touch with the affected people and wanted to see them work for the best solution. She referred to the memo and pointed out some of the State statutes that had been ruled unconstitutional. Those rulings would have a lot to do with the kind of ordinance that would be reasonable for council to try to pass. Ms. Smith supported Ms. Miller's suggestion and pointed out that the Human Rights Council and commissions supported the four bills now in the State Legis- lature. In approving the minutes of the Legislative Subcommittee, council went on record in support of those bills. In working toward an ordinance, these proposed bills would need to be considered. She would not want to wait on the State's action however. Mr. Gleason suggested that the documents originate in the Attorney's Office. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 10 e e - Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that council direct the Human Rights Council, Human Rights staff, and the City Attorney1s Office to prepare a draft ordinance to be brought back to the council dealing with the whole harassment issue. Motion carried unanimously. v. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT WITH LANE REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION AUTHORITY FOR DOWNTOWN AIR QUALITY STUDY (memo distributed) Ms. Wooten noted that the grant would fund half of the study. She asked where the funds would come from for the other half. Mr. Gilman replied that they would be matched by local staff time. Res. No. 3491--A resolution authorizing execution of Grant No. 791 with Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority concerning services to perform a downtown parking and circulation plan air quality study. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. VI. CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING PENALTIES FOR DEFRAUDING AN INNKEEPER (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Stan Long, City Attorney. Mr. Long explained that this was an amendment to the City Code which already includes a prohibition against defrauding an innkeeper. The amendment consists of a change in the penalty section. At this time, the maximum penalty for this type of theft is a $500 fine. The proposed change involved retaining the $500 fine and adding the pos- sibility of confinement in jail, not to exceed 10 days. The matter comes before council because the presiding municipal judge was sufficiently concerned to make the unusual request to the prosecutor that the City Council consider the matter. His Honor felt he did not have sufficient sentencing alternatives to deal with the kinds of offenses that were coming to him. The prosecutor reviewed the matter and included his own reasoning for believing that the sentencing alter- natives should be broadened. They prepared the ordinance on that basis. CB 2265--An ordinance concerning the penalty for violation of Section 4.930 of the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Section 4.990 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, 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. Council Bill 2265 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18771. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 11 e VII. EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD EMS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AMBULANCE RATE SETTING (memo distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Carol James, City Auditor, to give the staff report. She explained that the motion comes from the Eugene Emergency Medical Services Task Force in regard to the review processes for ambulance rate setting. She reviewed the history and explained the Emergency Medical Services Task Force was established over a year ago. One responsibility was to come up with some methodology for establishing rates for the ambulance service. The task force is a joint committee with members made up of council members, administrative staff of the two cities and County, emergency room doctors, and experts on the subject. The task force's first action was to hire a consulting firm, Touche Ross & Co., from Portland to provide recommendations as to what methodology should be used in ambulance rate setting. The Touche Ross recommendations included: first, required revenues equal the operating costs plus a fair rate of return on the business (assuming the business is privately owned); second, established guide- lines as to operating costs increase and other factors that would affect rates; third, produce a financial information package to be prepared by the ambulance provider and submitted with a rate proposal as backup. (Previously rates were increased on the word of the provider that they needed more money.) The Touche Ross methodology had been approved by the task force and by the City Council. However, it did not establish a review process for the information package. That is the subject of the motion before the council. The recommendation assumes that the EMS Task Force be continued since it provides expertise in the medical area and assumes the provider will continue on a metropolitan basis. It would set standards for care. The recommendation for the rate process is first; the committee will later determine what services and standards will be set (response time--level of care). The provider will submit the Touche Ross information package to the staff for review. Staff will determine whether the information is complete and provide any expertise in financial analysis that would be required to the committee. The committee would negotiate rate of return on investment and changes in carry-overs. They could adjust the required revenues. Once required revenues were determined, they would submit them to the council. Mr. Hamel praised the work of the task force. Ms. Miller and Mr. Obie represented council on the task force. Ms. Miller noted that there was no fixed rate of return. She felt that it was important to have an incentive for good management. They were working on quality of care standards, working with persons closely related to the ambulance service. These standards would be built into the franchise system and subject to review. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to approve the procedures as outlined in the staff memo of February 4, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. EUGENE PRIME SPONSOR 60-DAY UPDATE (memo and additional information distributed) e City Manager introduced Gary Long, Staff Services Director. Mr. Long referred to the memoranda outlining the status of the CETA program and outlining a 50-day update. These changes, he said, have occurred or will be completed by April 15, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 12 . e e 1981. The changes were required for two reasons: 1) to make the program conform with the Oregon constitutional requirements and the City's ability to lend its credit, and 2) to conform to the Reagan Administration cuts in public service employment. Mr. Long reviewed the changes in the last six months. They started the fiscal year with a $4 million employment training program for adults and youth with private sector employment and public sector non-profit employers. The service delivery system was contracted to private for-profit, non-profit, and public agencies. A minimal administrative staff was employed directly by the City. As of April 15, 1981, the City will continue to have an Adult and Youth Training program targeted for private sector jobs. The Public Service Employment program will be in the final phase-out and should be shut down in mid- to late summer. All contracts with private for-profit and non-profit contractors are terminated April 15 to conform to the legal counsel and City Council instructions. Public contractors, such as LCC, Eugene 4-J, Bethel 52, and U of 0, will continue to provide services. The remaining program delivery staff, formerly employed by private contractors, that are affordable with the budget cuts will be employed directly by the City. In summary, the 60 days has been a very difficult tran- sition for everyone. The major change at mid-year in the program has a great deal of accompanying frustrations. There are two formal complaints from con- tractors and they are being handled through the complaint procedure. The City staff wishes to express appreciation for the high degree of cooperation received by the non-profit contractors who have worked to minimize the impact of the change. With their cooperation, it appears that no public service program par- ticipant will be losing a position because of the legal reorganization. Because of the cooperation, the public service phase-out is going as well as possible and they expect the majority of participants to find permanent jobs. The remaining $2.2 million program of Adult and Youth Training services will be targeted toward the private sector and could provide an important link and support component to any economic development activities of the City as they try to diversify the local economy and improve the opportunity for unemployed residents to compete for work. The council is required to approve the restructured program. Ms. Wooten recognized that there were administrative costs of the program that were paid to the contractors. She asked if these monies were now being captured. Randy Miller, CETA administrator, indicated a month ago they sent out modifi- cations of all the contracts. The recaptured dollars will be retained by the CETA program. The program funds that would have gone to non-profit agencies (that they no longer contract with) will go to the City of Eugene or 4-J to expend on participant wages and fringes. Mr. Miller explained that there were twenty participants remaining with non-profit organizations. They are currently Title D participants with non-profit agencies. After April 15, those participants will be transferred to 4-J or the City of Eugene or hired by the agency they are currently working for. Mr. Miller said he would supply the administrative cost figures for Ms. Wooten. Ms. Wooten also wanted to know what kind of impact the loss of that adminis- trative money is going to have on the overall organization that had the enrollees MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 13 e in their jurisdiction. Mr. Miller replied that the organizations affected most had the highest number of participants. The City would lose $4,000; 4-J, $3,000; and only one non-profit lost $1,000 or more. The administrative costs lost ranged in the area of $300 to $700, not a major source of revenue. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Miller how much administrative money his shop had lost. Mr. Miller replied the total staff, including the contractors, had been reduced from 64 positions to approximately 45. The City of Eugene staff was increased from 19 staff to 37. In addition to prime sponsor staff of 37, there is staff ~mployed through Lee, Bethel, and 4-J school district~_ ThQ totdl ;~ app~o~- imately ~5 ~taff (which includ~~ ~~k;~es). Ms. Wooten referred to the letter from Ray Thorn, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources, which indicated that jurisdictions did not need to suspend their program if they continue good faith efforts at resolving this at the Federal level. Subsequently the balance of prime sponsors are not disrupting or terminating their program. She wondered why Eugene was the only one in the state to continue the effort in this way. Mr. Gleason said the responsibility rested with him. Every legal opinion agreed that it is unconstitutional. In his opinion there was a risk; unfortunately, it would be determined in the future. e Ms. Wooten said that she was confused because she thought at the time that they were voting to have 60-day termination of the program if no solution at the Federal level was determined. For that reason, she was surprised that the pro- grams were terminated prior to 60-day review by the council. Mr. Long replied that they did not terminate any contracts prior to April 15, 1981, except those that they could no longer fund because of budget cuts. Mr. Lindberg asked the plans for citizen boards. Mr. Long said that they were meeting in the next few days and hoped to have the input of the Prime Sponsor Council and the Private Industry Council. Mr. Lindberg complimented Mr. Long on the fact that very little criticism has been heard about the decisions except that communications might have been improved. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the City approve the continuation of the City of Eugene restructured CETA prime sponsor program. Ms. Smith complimented Mr. Long and reminded the council that the purpose of CETA was to train employees and not to fund agencies. With that focus in mind, the direction of the staff is a very important one. Motion carried unanimously. Councilor Haws left the meeting. IX. EUGENE RENEWAL AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONFERENCE CENTER FINANCING (memo distributed) e Manager introduced Jeff Tashman, Department of Housing and Community Conservation. Mr. Tashman explained that last January, staff presented to the council a conceptual plan for financing the Community Conference Center. It involved the issuing of MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 14 e e e certificates of participation which are similar to bonds. Council directed staff to return to council with an implementation plan which staff is now submitting for approval. Staff is asking for first reading of an ordinance which authorizes the execution of legal documents that implement this financing plan. He introduced Joel Kaplan, City Attorney's Office; Howard Rankin, Rankin, McMurry, et. al.; and Dennis Ciocca, E. H. Hutton, to explain the documents and to speak on the bond market conditions. Mr. Tashman explained that during early meetings with bond counsel and the underwriters, it became clear that a certain amendment to the Hilton Hotel agreement that the council approved last June would have to be modified. That agreement, drafted on the request of Councilor Obie, set up language providing that if operating deficits of the center were extremely large, the hotel developer would take over the conference center. Under that provision, the conference center would be operated for the exclusive benefit of the hotel. In the course of arranging the financing, it became clear that this provision would jeopardize the tax-exempt nature of the financing. The conference center would be a private facility. Mr. Tashman asked council to rescind the authorization to staff to execute Section 3 of the Addendum to Agreement amending the Agreement of June 25, 1980, between the City, the ERA, and the Sixth Avenue Hotel Associates. Mr. Kaplan asked for a first reading of the ordinance authorizing execution of documents to proceed with the financing. Next week, they will ask for a second reading. May 15 is scheduled for issuance of the bond certificates. He expected minor changes. Mr. Kaplan explained the way the transaction works. The ERA deeds to a trustee (a bank), development rights of the site above a certain elevation. The trustee will appoint the ERA as its agent to build the conference center. Simultaneously, the trustee will enter into a lease agreement with the City of Eugene (21 years). After that time the City has the option of purchasing the conference center for $100. The trustee will then syndicate its landlord's interest in the lease through certificates of participation (similar to bonds). The rent the City pays on the lease is going to be determined by the principal amount (not known now) and the interest rate (not known now). The documents are a lease urchase a reement (between the trustee and the City of Eugene) and the trust indenture between the trustee and the City) with provisions for security and default, and the rights of the owners of certificates of participation. It outlines and defines the security interest that the owners have, which is that of a landlord. They can foreclose on that interest and the trustee can take over operation and ownership if the City defaults. The City is required in the trust indenture to make an annual appropriation in its budget. The City does not have the right to levy a special tax to pay for the rent. The City is obligated to pay the rent to the extent that funds are available and appropriations are made in its budget. Another document will be an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the agency. The agency agrees to reimburse the City, from tax allocation revenues, all funds that the City expends on principal, interest, taxes, insurance, etc. There will be an appropriation in the City budget for payment to the trustees of rent and other expenses. On the revenue side, there will be the exact same amount coming in from the agency. The next document is the agency agreement MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 15 e e (the City Council is not party to that agreement). The trustee appoints the agency as its agent to construct the conference center. The last document is purchase agreement and underwriting agreement (between the City of Eugene, the trustee, the agency, and E. F. Hutton, their underwriter). All parties will be called upon to indicate certain things will happen. Howard Rankin, attorney in Portland and bond counsel, said that this is a series of complicated documents. The explanation by Mr. Kaplan was well stated. Dennis Ciocca, E. F. Hutton, San Francisco, explained interest rates are high and very volatile. Bond issuance is exceptionally difficult. They have there- fore prepared both optimistic and pessimistic appraisals ranging from 9.31-11.34 percent. The affordability of the project ranges on net payments due for the 20-year term estimated at $631,000-$763,000. These payments are feasible based on the income of the agency. These are very high interest rates; however, construction bids are low at this time. They had made a diligent effort to design this issue to allow the City and the ERA to enter into a re-funding if the opportunity arises and interest rates drop in the future. At any time, it would be possible to reissue and use lower interest rates. Mr. Lindberg asked if the debt could be paid off sooner than 20 years. Mr. Ciocca replied that there was a provision that would require penalty for early re-funding of 2.5 percent. Mr. Lindberg asked what a drop in interest rates would make re-funding advisable. Mr. Ciocca's theory was that unless it was possible to make 10-percent savings on debt service it was not feasible. Mr. Lindberg asked if interest rates were a determining factor in the amount of debt service. Mr. Ciocca replied that they were. Three other factors affected it as well. They are the size of the issue, the fees, and the first year's interest that would be paid during the first year of construction and start-up of the facility. Mr. Lindberg asked if the City's ability to pay was a factor if they had to pay the debt service no matter what. Mr. Ciocca said that if the Renewal Agency could not pay, the City would then make the payment. Mr. Ciocca said the City is indeed guaranteeing this debt. Mr. Lindberg asked the effect of the Obie amendment on the obligation of the City in ways other than going into default. Mr. Gleason replied, "None." He doubted its effect as a "safety net." Ms. Smith asked when the construction bids go out. Mr. Tashman replied that they would be received on April 28. Mr. Tashman said that they will be coming back to council to adopt by resolution the documents that will contain the final cost of the conference center and the interest rates on the bond. At that time, staff has arranged for a woman from Portland who is aware of the workings of the bond market to help evaluate bids from the underwriters for council and to evaluate how the bids fit in with the market at that time. Ms. Wooten asked the antiCipated deficit for th~ conf~r~nc~ c~nt~~ which was the conCQrn of Mr. Ob;~. Mr. Tashman said that the hotel agreement was presented in June. Best estimates of deficits are between $25,000 to $30.000 in th~ first five years and then diminishing until th~ tenth year when it was anticipated that there would be an operational surplus. Ms. Wooten asked how the ERA would generate revenues to repay the City and if ~ the development of revenue was contingent on the ERA boundary expansion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 16 . Mr. Tashman replied that they were not contingent on the boundary expansion but on the mechanisms of the agency's tax allocations revenues. These revenues accrued to the agency by the County allocating that portion of the total property tax that would have gone to the City, the school districts, and the County from the increase in the assessed value in the renewal district since it was formed. The only portions of those revenues that are not pledged for repayment to the City are those portions previously obligated to ERA's and two outstanding bond issues for the Parcade and the conference center parking garage. Mr. Tashman explained that the documents to be presented April 15, 1981, will be without the hard numbers. They will request adoption in this form because of the non-emergency 30-day period which the ordinance must wait to take effect. On May 13, 1981, the council will accept or reject the bid to purchase the certificates submitted by E. F. Hutton. Ms. Wooten asked about the commitment to the Hilton Hotel. Mr. Tashman said that the conference center must be completed by March 2, 1982, according to those agreements. Ms. Wooten asked about the obligation to the Hilton Hotel to build the center. Mr. Gleason said it was two different acts. The first was the decision of the City to build the conference center and the second was to enter into an agreement with the Hilton Hotel. CB 2266--An ordinance authorizing execution of documents concerning the leasing and financing of the Eugene Conference Center. - Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the bill be read the first time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to rescind authorization to the staff to execute Section 3 of the amendment to the agreement passed on June 25, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wooten said she was very uncomfortable voting for the ordinance and she was putting all her faith in staff to make sure that the City was not running into difficulty by complicated and new processes which bypass consideration of the voters. Mr. Kaplan explained that next week they will bring the second reading of the ordinance to the council. On May 13, they will bring the offer to purchase the certificates to the council based on construction bid and interest rates. It is not until that time that anything is finally decided. The meeting was adjourned to April 13, 1981. e Respect~ ~. Gle on City Manager (Recorded by Beth Conant) BC:ce/CM23al MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1981 Page 17