Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/1981 Meeting e e - M I NUl E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber April 15, 1981 11:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, Eric Haws, Emily Schue, and Cynthia Wooten. Councilor D. W. Hamel was absent. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oreaon, was called to order by Her Honor, Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Temporary Traffic Diverters Mr. Obie asked staff about two temporary traffic diverters to be installed at 10th and Adams and Broadway and Tyler (notification to council April 7, 1981). He said 318 surveys had been distributed of which one-third, or 100, had come back. Of those returned, 52 percent favored testing the diverters and 45 percent were opposed to the diverters which translates to roughly 20 percent in favor and 20 percent opposed out of the 300 people in the neighborhood. Mr. Obie questioned spending the dollars on testing without an overwhelming endorse- ment by the neighborhood. He asked staff to expand on the subject and asked if the same area wasn1t tested a few years ago. Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, replied that the diverters being installed in the Wests ide Neighborhood Quality Project area were diverters provided in the Neighborhood Refinement Plan, as adopted three or four years ago. The depart- ment had been prodded by the neighborhood for the last few years to install the diverters. Because the diverters are consistent with the plan, the Public Works Department decided to go ahead and test them. Several .years ago (before Mr. Hanks was on staff) different diverter sites were tested. Records were kept of these tests and Mr. Hanks said that he would report back to the council if they wished. Mr. Obie said he would like to know what had happened in the past. He would like to allow traffic through the area with a better street plan and by adding amenities such as planting, that would create a different environment and still allow traffic through. He asked that the diverters be delayed. Ms. Wooten said that she appreciated Mr. Obie1s concern. She represented that neighborhood. She had received numerous inquiries asking when the diverter testing could begin. She suggested that it would be more appropriate to do an in-depth evaluation, including alternatives, after the testing had been done. She did not wish to see the City Council postpone something that has had prior approval for some time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 1 e Mr. Obie asked if they could have a delay of one week in order to ascertain the kind of testing that had been done previously. Ms. Wooten replied that since the previous testing, the character of the neighborhood had changed, creating more traffic. A number of elements are different than the prior configuration when the diverters were tested. She would not object to a delay of one week as long as they could go ahead without further delay at that time. Ms. Miller suggested asking the Public Works Department to delay the installa- tion until next Wednesday. She recalled the old barricades and thought it was similar to the one proposed. She agreed that the character of the neighborhood due to Monroe Park and the traffic is different from before. Alternative methods of traffic diversion are worthy of discussion but should be considered separately. Mr. Gleason said staff would bring back an explanation to the council at the next meeting of what had been done in the past, what they were planning to do at this time, and what will be accomplished. e Ms. Wooten said that it was agreeable as long as they considered the neighbor- hood and the new considerations that exist there. She did not want council to decide whether or not to test the diverters, since they are part of an approved plan, without the ability of residents to respond. Councilor Obie requested information on the significance of the park as well. Manager said that they would be on the agenda as an informational item. A decision would be made only after the appropriate public process. B. Letter of Thanks to Don Nelson Ms. Smith noted that Don Nelson, who had covered the City Council for the Eugene Register-Guard for four years, left without council having the opportunity to show their appreciation. She requested a letter be sent thanking him for the four years of coverage and wiShing him well. The council concurred. C. Announcements Ms. Miller noted on May 21, 1981, the County Commissioners had requested a joint meeting with Springfield and Eugene city councils. She .anticipated sending a letter of acceptance and asked if there will be any objections or comments from council. There were none. Ms. Miller asked for volunteers to serve on the joint task force with EWEB. D. Agenda Adjustments Mr. Gleason added an item to the agenda on the matter of a mini-retreat for the council. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 2 II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL e A. Approval of Council Minutes of March 9, 1981, and Legislative Subcommittee Minutes of April 9, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve council minutes of March 9, 1981, and Legislative Subcommittee Minutes of April 9, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. B. Call for Public Hearing Easement Vacation for Lane Transit District (EV 81-1)(map distributed) CB 2277--An ordinance calling for a public hearing for May 27, 1981; re: easement vacation for Lane Transit District for property located east of Garfield between 8th Avenue and Broadway. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Council Bill 2277 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18774. C. Mall Street Performer's Program--Informational (memo distributed; guide- lines changes under separate cover) Ernie Drapela, Parks and Recreation, referred to the memorandum and explained the guidelines were essentially the same for 1981 as they were for 1980. The program resumed the first of April. The guidelines were reviewed by the Down- town Association, Parks and Recreation Department, Lane Regional Arts Council, and the Police Department. The only additions were that individuals should have plainly displayed buttons and that there would be no amplification of instruments. Ms. Wooten noted the auditions were once a month. Mr. Drapela noted that in the past this has been adequate. He said that there is enough flexibility if needed. Mr. Lindberg noted that three complaints regarding the performer would result in revocation of the performer's button. He asked if just anyone could register a complaint on any arbitrary basis which would result in the performer being told to leave. Mr. Drapela replied they had not had anyone avail themselves of that opportunity. His department would be very discrete in how they would accept those complaints. It has been a very acceptable program between the merchants and the performers in the mall. He did not anticipate problems. Mr. Lindberg suggested that they might want to tighten up the grievance procedures. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 3 o. Closing Time of Parks (memo, ordinance distributed) ~ Mr. Gleason introduced Ernie Drapela, Parks and Recreation. Mr. Drapela explained they were trying to eliminate a discrepany that existed between Section 4 of the code and the park's rules and regulations adopted in December 1979. There is no change in the practice or program whatsoever. They have a publication--Park Rules--printed two years ago and distributed since that time. They simply want to eliminate the oversight that occurred by failure to correct Section 4 at the time that the park rules and regulations was adopted. Mr. Haws asked if no one could be in the park between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. unless driving through the park on lawful business. He asked if that was the change. Mr. Drapela said the hours were what they were adjusting. It used to be 11 p.m. Mr. Haws said the change implied that one must drive through, not walk or bicycle. Mr. Drapela read the park's rules and did not see a problem. Mr. Haws felt that the wording discriminated against people who do not drive and suggested looking at this further in the future. CB 2278--An ordinance concerning City parks; amending Section 4.680 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Council Bill 2278 was the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18775. Community Oevelopment Block Grant Subcommittee Establishment (memo distributed) E. Mr. Gleason referred to the memo and explained they would like to have a council subcommittee, appointed by the Mayor, to consider the entire Community Develop- ment Block Grant issue. The Federal program is changing dramatically in the near future, and it is time to re-evaluate. Mr. Lindberg concurred and volun- teered to serve. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to establish a City Council subcommittee to work with the Community Development Committee on resolution of community development issues. Motion carried unanimously. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 4 e e e III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Urban Development Action Grant (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason explained that this was the first of two public hearings. At this public hearing, the council is ascertaining whether the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) is needed and what project the council would like to consider. The subsequent public hearing will take testimony on the proposed project. He introduced Chris Hofmann, Department of Housing and Community Conservation. Ms. Hofmann reviewed the Pockets of Poverty Program for UDAG. In February, council directed staff to prepare an application for Pockets of Poverty deter- mination to make Eugene eligible as a UDAG city. Currently, the numbers-- demographic for the City of Eugene--do not qualify Eugene as a "distressed city" for UDAG. Staff has determined that Eugene is qualified by having a Pocket of Poverty. The application will be submitted to the HUD office this week. The Pocket of Poverty noted is between Blair Boulevard on the west, the University of Oregon campus on the east, the railroad tracks on the north, and 18th Avenue on the south. The UDAG program can assist the City to leverage private invest- ment for economic development. projects. It has two major goals: 1) to leverage the private investment to at least 2-1/2 private dollars for every public dollar, and 2) to provide employment opportunities in the distressed area for CETA-eligible people. Ms. Hofmann clarified the process. The City sends in the application this week for determination of eligibility for the Pockets of Poverty Program. The project application will be the second portion. The Community Development Committee is suggesting a specific project for UDAG funding--Blair Commercial Revitalization developed by NEDCO. This "Red Barn Project" has been started with the CD money and now needs extra equity to proceed and to provide a district-wide parking area. The project would provide a solution for the problems of businesses in the Blair area. It is in conformance with the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. Ms. Hofmann explained this public hearing is to discuss the need for UDAG assistance. The second hearing is to discuss specific proposals and the NEDCO proposal for the Red Barn. Council action is required before the proposal is submitted. UDAG requires that the project increase the property value and provide additional tax revenue to the City. The Red Barn project would do that. Ms. Smith asked about the criteria used in the determination of the Pocket of Poverty. Ms. Hofmann replied they were the number of low-income (incomes 80 percent below the median income), people (area of 10,000 people), and the amount of unemployment and underemployment, along with the block grant criteria, such as substandard housing. The Red Barn project is the only project that has progressed enough with a private commitment to apply for UDAG at this time. Ms. Wooten was pleased about the application and wanted to make it clear that the application could not go forward without a private commitment of 2-1/2 times the amount of public commitment and that with that commitment, there was no guarantee that the project would be funded. Ms. Hofmann said that this was correct. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 5 e e e Public hearing was opened. Those testifying in favor of the UDAG application were: Ron McMullin, 1420 East Briarcliff, President of the Whiteaker Community Council, said that they had been working on the projects in the Blair area for several years. They have been using Community Development Block Grant funds and trying to provide private financing for the Red Barn project on Blair as well as a co-op housing project in the Blair neighborhood. They feel that it is important to be able to continue with this project. The UDAG grant would give them an opportunity to leverage additional money via private financing. It would give a greater amount of equity. It would allow them to meet the higher interest rates currently being asked. Cecil Strange, NEDCO Board, said 50 years ago Blair Boulevard was a commercial center in the Whiteaker community. The buildings are now run-down as the Highway 99 traffic was diverted to the south. There are very few viable com- mercial buildings in the area. Many that are there are currently for sale. NEDCO has been working to revitalize the Blair Boulevard area as a commercial district fOllowing the goals and strategies adopted by the City Council for economic development. Peter Bartel, 2532 Nixon Street, board member for the Community Center for the Performing Arts (CCPA) and aide to Commissioner Jerry Rust, urged the council to proceed with the application for UDAG money. He said there is a significant problem in the core area that needs to be addressed. As the board member, he assured the City Council that were the City to receive money, the CCPA would apply for money as well. He noted that very early on Commissioner Rust wrote a letter supporting the Red Barn1s historic designation. It is an important part of the Whiteaker neighborhood. He wished to reaffirm Commissioner Rust's support for NEDCO and the Red Barn project. Carol Glaser, 47 Adams Street, staff member of NEDCO, called council's atten- tion to the distributed information on the Red Barn project. She reviewed the history of NEDCO, the market feasibility study for the commercial market, and the architectural analysis for the structural feasibility of the building. NEDCO has located prospective clients and has obtained a historic designation for the Red Barn. They have accomplished rehabilitation of one building on the site, which is now the NEDCO office. All this was done with volunteer labor and at a cost of only $10 a square foot. They have raised 40 percent of the total project cost for the Red Barn. As they are getting quotes from mortgage lenders of 14.5 percent to 19.5 percent for the long-term mortgage, NECO is short of equity for rehabilitation financing. They also need off-street parking for the buildings and other area businesses. They propose to apply to UOAG to remove a house from a lot and to pave the lot for parking. NEDCO proposes applying for a UDAG grant of approximately $80,000. The total project cost is $460,000. The UDAG portion would be 17 percent of the whole. It would be leveraged at a ratio of 2.8 to 1 of private money to public money. They are far along in the written work for the application and for the commitment from the private people--the tenants and the banks. The NEDCO staff feel they can put together an application that will be successful. Ms. Glaser invited council to visit the site and talk with the NEDCO staff. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 6 . e e Ms. Schue, Mr. Lindberg, and Ms. Wooten expressed their support of the project. Ms. Wooten asked for the employment figures for the next public hearing. Mr. Obie said the City's credibility was put on the line with such an application. He asked to see who was the owner of the Red Barn in the last five years, any change in ownership, and any ownership directly related to NEDCO or the Whitea- ker neighborhood. He also wanted to know from a contracting standpoint, the work that is to be done, in order to analyze the relationship, so that it is public knowledge. He asked for an independent opinion on the financial feasi- bility of the project, possibly from someone in the development business who is non-competitive and non-participatory. He looked forward to receiving that information next week. Ms. Hofmann said that she could provide a market study at the next hearing. Mr. Lindberg felt that the best judgment would be whether the banks liked the project. He would not object to looking at the project. He asked staff for guidelines for hiring CETA-eligible workers as opposed to union employees, along with any relevant information. Ms. Hofmann said NEDCO had to prepare the information, contracting procedures (especially regarding local laws) as well as the participation of minority contractors on such projects, as part of the application. It would be made available next week. B. Consideration of Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance (memo, ordi- nance distributed) Manager introduced Mr. Drapela, Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Drapela explained that a few but significant violations of the tree preservation code had brought this item to the City's attention. While Eugene has a good pro- gram, it should be improved if it is to be truly successful. There have been enforcement complications due to vague language. It is the view of staff that the penalties should be stiffened for the few flagrant violators. This has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and the City Prosecutor's Office and they have identified some proposed changes. Mr. Drapela explained the proposed changes. In the penalty section the maximum fine would be $500 or 25 percent of the appraised value of all trees removed. Mr. Drapela explained that this section is designed to deal with the exceptions but it is important to make the penalties stiffer than they have been in the past. Ms. Schue asked if developers could remove trees on undeveloped land. Mr. Drapela explained when there is a vacant lot under 2,500 square feet, one cannot remove the trees. Mr. Haws questioned the use of a minimum fine, which leaves no leeway for the judge. Mr. Drapela noted that this ordinance sets a minimum and a maximum. Time Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that in some situations it becomes cost-effective to take the trees off the property if the fine is small. It was felt that there was a need to have a substantial fine to deter small-scale cutting. Mr. Haws wondered if there was another way to increase the penalties without putting a minimum fine in the ordinance. Mr. Sercombe explained a person might harvest 400 trees, realizing that the fine could be $100. It was designed to be a deterrent. Ms. Miller wondered if the ordinance should provide a minimum fine related to the appraisal value of the timber removed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 7 - Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Haws wanted to know why the City had not previously prosecuted violators of the tree-cutting ordinance. Mr. Drapela explained the vague language which is being changed in the proposal presented. The penalties are a staff response as the means to deter any future violation. Mr. Gleason suggested that staff bring back to the council a re-evaluation of the penalty with written memorandum in regard to how the City will enforce this ordinance. There may be another way of enforcing the ordinance without creating the inflexibility that councilor Haws has pointed out. Ms. Miller appreciated that suggestion, since she was a little uneasy with the language. She suggested a percent of the appraised value of the timber cut. She asked staff to bring it back in one week. The item will be considered at that time without a public hearing. IV. ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROVAL OF UPDATED MANUAL ON TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, SIGNING, ETC., FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS (memo, ordinance distributed; manual under separate cover) e Manager introduced Jim Hanks, Public Works Traffic Engineer. Mr. Hanks explained in 1973 the City Council approved a manual on traffic control devices for people doing construction on City streets. Since that time the National Manual on Traffic Control Devices has changed and the local manual has been made to conform to the changes in the national manual. It is more applicable to city streets. The principal change is that the signs will now be sex-neutral. CB 2280--An ordinance concerning work safety procedures in public right- of-way: amending Section 7.100 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read a . 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 2280 was read a second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and be given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and' numbered 18776. V. UPDATE ON AND RESPONSE TO 4-J SCHOOL DISTRICT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS (memo distributed) A. School Closure Process - Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin and Jim Farah, Planning Department, to explain the task force recommendations and closure of Lincoln School. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 8 e e Mr. Chenkin referred to the memo dated April 9, 1981, which the Planning Depart- ment had sent to the City Manager. The memo explained what the School District Task Force saw as its charge. The criteria that they developed are enumerated. The memo provided a list of schools considered for closure. The staff recom- mendation is that the City not attempt to step up its involvement in the process at this time, but concentrate on directing its comments to the administrative staff and board, because of 1) the short length of time between the completion of the public hearings and the task force recommendations; 2) the orientation of the public hearings to neighborhoods and individuals, not public agencies; 3) the constraints the task force had had in developing the models; and 4) the fact that the 4-J staff who will get the model recommended by the task force and the 4-J board are not constrained by any particular criteria. The City could communicate with the 4-J staff and then, with the board, in its final delibera- tion. At that time, there will be more time for this deliberation and wider criteria considerations. Mr. Chenkin explained one board member and the super- intendent of schools had expressed a desire to work more closely with the City Council, the Planning Commission, and staff. Mr. Chenkin noted that he will be attending the public hearings. He asked for direction from council. His recommendation was to go directly to the staff and school board and not to testify at the public hearings. He further suggested the City pursue working more closely with both the school board and staff. Ms. Schue asked how far the process had gone and how much council could affect it. Mr. Chenkin explained the task force does not have the authority to decide which schools will be closed. The board and administration are waiting for the task force's recommendation before proceeding. Nothing he saw would indicate otherwise, except for Lincoln School. The board is not constrained by the task force criteria. They could decide that neighborhood impact either is or is not more important than the task force's assessment would seem to indicate. Ms. Wooten was supportive of meeting with the Planning Commission and the school board, and providing testimony to the board at the time of their deliberation on the recommendations of the task force. Mr. Chenkin pointed out that the City might have input at the administrative level before deliberations with the board. He suggested the three bodies involved get together to discuss the process. Mr. Haws left the meeting. Mr. Gleason said if it was the consensus of the council, he would make the arrangements. Mr. Lindberg asked to hear from Darcy Marentette, a representative of the Citizen Involvement Committee, regarding adequate opportunity for citizen input. Ms. Marentette, chairperson of the Citizen Involvement Committee, made a personal statement that the bulk of the time allotted in the task force public hearing would not be open to anyone who wished to speak. It appeared unless they had previously registered, that that time would be limited to 30 minutes with the possibility that the time could be extended or that people could go to a subse- quent meeting. CIC wanted to bring this to the council's attention. Ms. Marentette was sure that the Citizen Involvement Committee would be pleased to know that overtures were being made to the council and the City from School ~ District 4-J. They were not requesting action but wanted to alert the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 9 e - e Mr. Obie was not sure the council could develop a consensus. He was hesitant in having the council interject too strongly in the process at this point for fear of being part of the problem rather than part of the solution. He said it is council IS responsibility to keep the school board up to date on the policies of the community and to audit the activities to see that those policies are being considered. He saw no indication that those policies were not being considered. He was not in favor of being involved officially at this time. He said it is very important to keep the politics as far away as they can. Ms. Smith did not see how a task force made up of City Council, school board, and Planning Commission members, could hurt the situation. She shared Mr. Obiels concerns about taking over the role of the school board; however, the decision the school board makes will affect Eugene. Because of communication problems, nothing could be lost by having that kind of task force appointed with the understanding that it is the school board's responsibility but that the City wants to be more closely involved. Mr. Obie replied that if they did that, he would want to be on the task force to be sure that his ward was represented and that is the point that he was trying to make. Ms. Miller thought a joint effort would be more successful than harmful. She supported the effort. She was not happy with the lack of citizen input in the task force process. She felt that the basic assumptions of the task force have not been the subject of public testimony. The City Manager suggested a methodology. He thought the process was "shifting gears" and input would not be constructive currently. The school district has made a two-pronged overture: 1) it would decide when input was strategic, and 2) they will get reactions to a model. Mr. Gleason said there is real jeopardy for the City Council, which Councilor Obie alluded to. The council will have difficulty with speaking on school decisions with one voice as these decisions will affect each ward in a different fashion. There will be pressure to enter that environment. He suggested letting the situation crystallize. Staff will bring it back in the context of the municipal interest and try to steer away from the parochial solutions. Because of policy considerations, community interest, and long-range goals, council cannot afford to walk away from the subject. Members of the City Council agreed with Mr. Gleasonls statement. Ms. Schue hoped that the concern of the Citizen Involvement Committee could be conveyed to School District 4-J. Mr. Gleason drew a consensus that: 1) the City wants to intervene from the standpoint of goals and data of the City and that should be made clearly under- stood at the school board leyel; 2) there is some concern with regard to citizen input and the City should very tactfully attempt to be constructive; 3) the City will wait until there is something clear to make suggestions about after the recommendation is made by the task force. The City will work with the school board in developing a proper format for that. Mr. Gleason thought it was appropriate for him to talk to Dr. Dorland and to get Dr. Dorland's reaction. He would communicate back to the council. Mr. Chenkin agreed and added that his impression was that whatever the task force would come up with, the board will think about their recommendations very seriously. The board's final decision is not scheduled to be reached until the end of the summer. There should be ample opportunity for the City to deliberate and get involved. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 10 e All councilors agreed with the procedure. B. Lincoln School Mr. Farah explained that the school board has decided to close Lincoln School at the end of the school year. The City has money invested in the school through Community Development Block Grant funds. Staff has taken some very preliminary steps to see if it could be maintained as a public facility and if public access could be maintained. They have met with the school district administration and explored the concept with them. Staff agreed to assemble some cost data and plans for the facility after ideas of usage have been explored. Mr. Farah asked if they should proceed further. Mr. Gleason said that they have done the preliminary work. The school board is interested in working with the City. It would be held as a public facility since Eugene is a growing City. It could possibly be needed in 10 or so years from now as an educational facility. That option could be left open by some lease arrangements which would maintain the building in public ownership. Improvements would have to be made. If the council approves, Mr. Gleason would set up an executive task force to pursue lease agreements, arrangements for financing, etc. He asked if the council wanted to pursue this course. The school district is very interested in working with the City and would not require the City to buy the equity in the building. e Councilors expressed their agreement with the actions suggested by Mr. Gleason. Mr. Obie suggested it could house non-profit agencies. He said he would provide information on a similar project. Ms. Miller suggested a day-care center for downtown workers. Mr. Gleason said that he would go ahead and pursue the issue. He would bring back a series of proposals, working with the neighborhoods, non-profit agencies and others, in order to pursue this with the school board. VI. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING Conference Center Leasing and Financing Jeff Tashman, Department of Housing and Community Conservation, explained that at the last council meeting, the council had one question that they wished to discuss this week concerning the lending of credit to the Hilton Hotel. He introduced the Eugene Renewal Agency counsel, Joe Richards. Mr. Richards said that councilor Wooten suggested that, in fact, the convention center would be a publicly owned and financed facility that would be in private use. She asked whether that would be in violation of Article 11, Section 9, of the State Constitution, which provides that the City cannot lend its credit to a private corporation. Mr. Richards said the answer to her question is no, it does not violate the Constitution, and the reason that he was confident of this is that the Court of Appeals had addressed the same situation in 1979. It was the case of the Thunderbird Motel vs. the City of Portland and the Marriott Hotel Cor- poration. The City of Portland sold land to the Marriott and at City expense there was to be built a sky-bridge and tennis courts adjoining the hotel; these would be managed by the Marriott. The Court of Appeals said that it was the City that was building the courts and would continue to own them. Secondly, on - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 11 . e -- the issue of public use, courts do not interfere in a public body's definition of what is a public use unless no reasonable person would say that there was any public use. The conclusion is that there is no violation of the Oregon Consti- tution. Ms. Wooten thanked Mr. Richards for resolving her concern about the liability of the City. CB 2266--An ordinance authorizing execution of documents concerninq the leasing and financing of the Eugene Conference Center. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18777. VII. MINI-RETREAT Mr. Gleason said that the council had previously discussed having a mini-retreat. Staff was prepared to poll council for dates, times, and agenda items in order to make the retreat efficient. He asked if there was agreement among the council. Ms. Smith asked if they would retain Don Murray as they had in the past. Mr. Gleason said that he would like to do that. Ms. Smith suggested contacting Mr. Murray. There were no objections. Mr. Gleason announced that he would be making a presentation about the City budget on KOZY television at 7 p.m. The meeting was adjourned to April 22, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ~~. Micheal D. Gleason City Manager Recorded by Beth Conant MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 12