Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/1981 Meeting i M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber July 8, 1981 11 : 30 a. m . COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Gretchen Mi 11 er. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Expression of Gratitude Mayor Keller thanked the council and staff who picked up his responsibilities when he was out of town. B. Sign Code Lighting Intensity e Councilor Lindberg indicated that he had asked Pat Lynch, Council Administrator, to coordinate with staff and the Planning Commission an analysis of the Sign Code regulations regarding lighting intensities in residential areas. C. Appointments Mr. Gleason indicated that the council had submitted ballots for openings on the Community Development Committee, the Citizen Involvement Committee, Eugene Urban Renewal Agency, and the Joint Housing Committee. The councilors voted as follows for the Citizen Involvement Committee openings: Eric Haws: Randall Douglass, Michael Fox, Brian Clark, and Harold Gausman Betty Smith: Eugene Albert, Brian Clark, Randall Douglass, Reverend T. Wayne Dyer, and Michael Fox Emily Schue: May Walston, Brian Clark, William Blitz, Harold Gausman, and Herta Tschersich Cynthia Wooten: Brian Clark, Reverend T. Wayne Dyer, Michael Fox, and Harol d Gausman Mark Lindberg: Michael Fox and Reverend T. Wayne Dyer Brian Obie: Eugene Albert, Brian Clark, Randall Douglass, Reverend T. Wayne Dyer, and Michael Fox - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 1 Bill Hamel: Randall Douglass~ Eugene Albert~ Brian Clark~ Herta Tschersich~ and May Walston e Gretchen Miller: Herta Tschersich~ May Walston~ Michael Fox~ Brian Clark, and William Blitz. The council selected the following to be interviewed for the Citizen Involvement Committee openings: Eugene Albert, Brian Clark, Randall Douglass, Reverend T. Wayne Dyer, and Michael Fox. For openings on the Community Development Committee, the councilors voted as follows: Eric Haws: Dana Weinstein and Patricia Vallerand Betty Smith: Kelly Beckley, Paul Harrison, and Richard Weinman Emily Schue: Alan Garten, Patricia Vallerand, and David Webb Cynthia Wooten: Alan Garten and Dana Weinstein Mark Lindberg: Alan Garten, Patricia Vallerand, and Richard Weinman Brian Obie: Kelly Beckley~ Richard Weinman, and David Webb Bill Hamel: Kelly Beckley, Paul Harrison, and David Webb Gretchen Miller: Harris Hoffman, Patricia Vallerand, and Alan Garten. The council selected the following to be interviewed for the Community Develop- ment Committee opening: Kelly Beckley, Alan Garten, and Patricia Vallerand. For the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency's three openings~ the councilors voted as follows: Eric Haws: Dana Weinstein, Arlene Platt, Jeff Reingold~ Dustin Posner, e and Fred Mohr Betty Smith: Bruce Mallory, John Matott, Fred Mohr, Dustin Posner, and Tom Schott Emily Schue: Bruce Mallory, John Matott, Dustin Posner, Tom Schott, and Jeff Reingold Cynthia Wooten: Peter Bartel and Dustin Posner Mark Lindberg: Dustin Posner, Bruce Mallory, Harris Hoffman, John Matott, and Dana Weinstein Brian Obie: John Matott, Dustin Posner, Bruce Mallory, Tom Schott, and Fred Mohr Bill Hamel: Tom Schott, Laura Johnson, Bruce Mallory, Fred Mohr, and Jeff Reingold Gretchen Miller: Dana Weinstein, Fred Mohr, Peter Bartel, Arlene Platt, and Dustin Posner. The council selected the following to be interviewed for the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency openings: Bruce Mallory, John Matott~ Fred Mohr, Dustin Posner, Tom Schott, and Dana Weinstein. For the Joint Housing Committee's two openings, the councilors voted as follows: Eric Haws: Carl Hosticka, Sarah Chandler~ and Caroline Frengle Betty Smith: Caroline Frengle, Don Kinnel, and John Van Landingham e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 2 Emily Schue: John Van Landingham, Caroline Frengle, and Jonathan Pincus e Cynthia Wooten: Caroline Frengle, Carl Hosticka, John Van Landingham, and Martha Filer Mark Lindberg: John Van Landingham, Caroline Frengle, and Jonathan Pincus Brian Obie: Don Kinnel, John Van Landingham, and Caroline Frengle Bill Hamel: Barbara Chinn, Sarah Chandler, and Paul Bogan Gretchen Miller: John Van Landingham, Caroline Frengle, and Carl Hosticka. The council selected the following to be interviewed for the Joint Housing Committee openings: Caroline Frengle, Carl Hosticka, Don Kinnel, and John Van Landingham. Ms. Schue asked if any of those applying for the Joint Housing Committee were active in a neighborhood association. Ruth Miller, Neighborhood Liaison, stated that Caroline Frengle has been active although not a neighborhood leader. Mark Lindberg indicated that Ms. Frengle had been a board member of the Neighborhood Housing Resource Center and lives in the Jefferson Neighborhood but is not on the Jefferson board. He indicated he was not sure about Mr. Van Landingham's association, but he has provided support to the neighborhoods as an attorney. Council consensus was for staff to determine when the interviews would be held. D. Introduction of New Public Service Officer Mr. Gleason announced that Loren Stubbert will be the Public Service Officer e in the City Manager's Office for the next six months. E. Meetings Mr. Gleason announced a Budget Committee meeting at 7:30 p.m. on July 21 in the McNutt Room; a joint meeting and task force report of industrial land use on July 15 at 11:30 a.m.; and the Monday night council work dinner session to be held at the Treehouse at 5 p.m. F. Fire Fighters' Settlement Gary Long stated that a two-year settlement had been made with the Fire Fighters' Association which includes this year's negotiations. The City and the Union decided to go with a two-year settlement rather than one year. He introduced Bruce Mulligan and Frank Jackson to provide additional information. Mr. Mulligan stated that the labor agreement is for an 8-1/2 percent increase on July 1, 1981, with a 1.6 percent market adjustment on January 1, 1982; the figures for July 1, 1982, depend upon the Consumer Price Index. $465,000 is the total cost for the first year. He thanked the fire fighters for their aid in the negotiations. Mr. Jackson stated that he represents Local 851 and thanked staff for their cooperation. The settlement was finally reached with an increase in the medical package, and they can now go forward with the Joint Labor/Manage- ment Committee which is the first in the State. Mayor Keller noted this is proof that people can work together to solve mutual problems. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 3 II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL e A. Approval of Council Minutes of April 13, 1981, June 17, 1981, and June 22, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve City Council Minutes of April 13, 1981, June 17, 1981, and June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Segregation of Assessments 1. Located at the north side of Old Dillard Road near its present terminus; applicant: Randy Severson (SE 81-4) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the segregation of assessments as noted. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Improvement Petition 1. Rockridge PUD (affected property on petition--assessable costs: sanitary sewer, 100 percent; City cost, none) Res. No. 3537--A resolution authorizing sanitary sewer construction to serve Rockridge PUD, Phase I (1820). e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith. to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Gleason stated that all is in order with each of these new liquor license outlet applications and staff recommends approval. A. New Liquor License outlet--99 Sunny Market Basket (package store); located at 751 Highway 99 North; applicants: David and Helen Miksch Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. New Liquor License outlet--Metropol Cafe (restaurant and package store); located at 898 Pearl Street; applicant: Donna McGuinness, President, Metropol Corporation - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 4 Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. New Liquor License outlet--Merchant's Donuts (retail malt beverage); located at 125 West Broadway; applicants: Terry and Doris Bailey Public hearing was opened. Terry Bailey, the applicant, stated that he supports his application and could answer any questions. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. D. New Liquor License outlet--Mr. Steak (retail malt beverage); located at 1861 Franklin Boulevard; applicant: Robert King, President, Franklin Steaks, Inc. Public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. e E. New Liquor License outlet--Mr. Steak (retail malt beverage); located at 992 Garfield; applicant: Robert King, President, Garfield Steaks, Inc. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. GILLESPIE BUTTE INITIATIVE PETITION (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Warren Wong, Financial Services Director. Mr. Wong stated that at the June 24, 1981, City Council meeting, council had discussed the Gillespie Butte initiative petition and directed staff to obtain additional information. He explained the process of filing an initiative petition with the finance officer, which would be one option for the council. After the initiative petition is filed with the finance officer, there would be ten days to verify the signatures on the initiative petition. If the signatures are verified, the finance officer presents the initiative petition to the council e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 5 and council has 30 days to act on the initiative petition measure. If council - takes no action in 30 days, the measure is placed on the ballot at the next . scheduled election at least 90 days after the finance officer has verified the signatures. Regarding the Gillespie Butte initiative petition, he and the City Attorney have reviewed that petition; and it appears that council could enact the initiative petition measure into substantive legislation. The resulting ordinance calls for the levying of a property tax and makes an appro- priation for the transfer of the Gillespie Butte property. However, council will have to place the property tax levy on the ballot for voter approval in order to fund the appropriation. The ordinance and resolution calling for the election must be passed by August 10, 1981, in order to place the property tax levy on the September 15, 1981, ballot. The second alternative discussed by council includes the unofficial acceptance of the initiative petition as being indicative of citizen interest in the transfer of the Gillespie Butte property. The council's procedure would be to enact an ordinance for a property tax levy and to make an appropriation for the expenditure along with a resolution and ordinance placing the property tax levy on the September 15, 1981, ballot. If this item were to go on the November 3 ballot, it would cost over $160,000. This would be the cost of issuing supple- mental tax statements. If the election were to be held on September 15, the only costs involved would be the election cost. He indicated that some of those who had circulated petitions were available to answer questions. Mr. Lindberg asked if the tax statement would list these costs whether the measure would pass or fail. Mr. Wong stated it would only be listed if it passes. Mr. Lindberg asked if other jurisdictions have items on either of these e election dates. Mr. Wong stated that he does not know. Mr. Lindberg asked if this item were placed on the ballot by initiative, if the costs would be the same as for the council placing it. Mr. Wong stated that they would. Processing costs would not be included. Mr. Lindberg asked how many signatures there are now. Katy Barnes, speaking from the audience, stated there are upwards of 9,600 signatures. Mr. Obie stated that one thing previously discussed by the council was if this was held until the November election ballot, whether EWEB would be willing to hold the property for that length of time. Mr. Wong responded that they would like to sell as soon as possible, so therefore EWEB would like to see this on the September ballot. Mr. Obie asked for the last date council could act to place this on the September ballot. Mr. Wong replied August 10. Ms. Smith stated that a letter received from Keith Parks, EWEB, indicates that the September ballot would be their preference and she feels that should be taken into consideration. Mr. Gleason said that EWEB states that market value of this property has changed and that is how they would like to sell it so the cost may be higher than the original amount that was anticipated. Mr. Obie stated that he would like to be able to borrow the petitions and do an informal check through some of them to determine the approximate number of signatures. If it appears from a random sampling that there are enough sig- natures that are valid, this should be set on an agenda prior to August 10 in - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 6 order to put this item on the September ballot and he would like to see all the involved costs included. Mr. Haws noted that if this were placed on the Sep- e tember ballot9 it would be a council-initiated item. He asked if the amounts might be varied from what council was originally told. Mr. Gleason indicated that they could. Ms. Smith stated that this item will be on the ballot one way or another and it would be cheaper to do it in September. Ms. Schue agreed that this item will be on the ballot and the reasons are better for placing it on the September ballot than on the November ballot. She feels the citizens' wish regarding this item had been made quite clear and council should do the job requested of them. Ms. Wooten noted agreement and indicated that she would support the passage of this measure. Mr. Hamel indicated agreement also with this item appearing on the ballot9 but also stated there is $150,000 set aside for park acquisition which he does not wish to have included as funds available for the purchase of Gillespie Butte. Mayor Keller indicated the council seems to have reached concurrence on this item. Mr. Obie requested that staff determine the amount of the election costs and what the costs would be to property owners. He would like the legal staff to come back with additional information. Mr. Gleason stated that he will negotiate the purchase price and a resolution or ordinance will be brought back to the council. Mr. Obie moved9 seconded by Ms. Smith, to have staff report e back on all concerns stated and to bring back authorization to place Gillespie Butte on the September 159 19819 election ballot for voter consideration. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. V. REVIEW OF PARK ACQUISITION PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY (memos and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Ernie Drapela9 Director of Parks & Recreation. Mr. Drapela stated that after reviewing the minutes of the council meeting from two weeks ago, he understands that council wants a status report on the park acquisition program along with information about the master plan. He regrets this has not been done previously. At the Joint Parks meeting today, it was determined to provide those minutes to the City Council in the future. He has prepared information and distributed it to the council regarding the program. The original park acquisition program began with a serial levy for the first three years. They have completed 34 acquisitions, leaving seven acquisitions remaining for FY 1981-82. This program was approved by the voters and staff is following that plan. They have stayed within the geographic area and within the dollar amount indicated in the plan. He feels the ridgeline acquisition area is the problem area. Four million dollars is still needed to complete the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 89 1981 Page 7 acquisitions as recommended. Eugene has benefited from the parks acquisition e program. Approximately $2 million is left, and the council will act on that budget. A great deal of energy was spent on acquiring the riverfront property. The December 22, 1980, City Council minutes indicate that there was one property outstanding in the riverfront acquisition and that is what was before the council two weeks ago. In the Parks & Recreation Department quarterly report, two pages were devoted to the original acquisition situation. They will devote a centerfold in the Parks & Recreation Leisure Schedule to the acquisition program. It seems that additional acquisitions may be needed. They have received comments from Mr. Hoffman who owns property at 128 Lawrence which is across from the property being considered for purchase, and he is urging support for the acquisition of that property. There needs to be solutions for parking and congestion. The present acquisition program has not varied from the original intent. Today, staff is asking authorization to acquire the property at Cheshire and Lawrence and that is the staff recommendation. Staff reviewed the acquisi- tion program with the Joint Parks Committee this morning, and that committee felt that the Parks & Recreation Department is on schedule and should proceed with the remaining acquisitions. Ms. Schue stated that Mr. Drapela1s report is accurate and the Joint Parks Committee feels it should be completed as outlined. Mr. Hamel agreed and stated that this is part of the completion program for riverfront acquisition, and it was to be presented to the council today according to the feelings of the joint parks committe. Mr. Obie asked if money was allocated for a downtown area park. Mr. Drapela stated that there was, but it is difficult to identify land available within e their financial means. Mr. Obie stated that one of his reasons for supporting this proposed acquisition is that it was identified in 1975-76. He asked how the Parks Department establishes its priorities as to which properties to acquire. Mr. Drapela stated that staff is trying to follow the original plan. The total program was conceived in 1975-76. They need $4.5 million to fulfill the program. They are negotiating on the final acquisitions. Mr. Obie asked how this proposed acquisition would be beneficial to the city residents. Mr. Drapela stated this would help develop the west end of Skinner Butte and it follows the Willamette Greenway criteria. This property is not separate from other acquisitions that have been completed. Mr. Obie asked if this would be for parking. Mr. Drapela said that it would not necessarily be used for parking and that at present this property would be land banked. This plan has been developed and presented to the neighborhood organizations. Mr. Obie asked if there are plans for inclusion of a community park board in the Master Plan. Mr. Drapela stated they will follow the park master plan and work with the neighborhood groups. In addition, when a site is proposed, it will be sub- mitted to the West Skinner Butte and Whiteaker neighborhoods. Mr. Obie asked if it was correct that they are in the process of developing a 20-year plan, but they are not recommending a community parks board. Mr. Drapela stated that they are not exactly recommending a community parks board. Some neighbor- hood groups have parks subcommittees. In areas where interest is expressed to participate, they are being included. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 8 Mr. Gleason stated that the master plan will go to the Joint Parks Committee and the City Council after neighborhood group approval. Mr. Drapela stated e that site review of this property will go to the neighborhood groups, but there is no development money for this property now. Mr. Haws stated that in 1975-76 when the acquisition program was begun, he did not think there would be money left by now. He feels this money should be spent faster before it depreciates any further. He asked if another bond measure would be likely. Mr. Orapela stated that this could be discussed later. A new bond measure will be included in the parks master plan for acquisi- tion and development. Mr. Haws asked when the remaining money would be spent. Mr. Drapela stated it could be spent within 60 days and he hopes that it would all be spent before December 1981. Ms. Wooten stated that in regard to the possibility of a parks board, within the expansion of the Joint Parks Committee, she hopes there will be an advisory subcommittee developed to provide aid and advice. Mayor Keller noted that this was originally a serial levy and was changed in 1979 to a bond measure. Funds at first were limited to a certain percent over a 15-year period. Mr. Gleason stated the remaining money should be spent on the existing plan. Any differences to that opinion should be brought up at this time. The master plan sets the standards and it will go through a process of citizen review. They are spending the existing money on the existing master plan. Mr. Hamel stated that people are parking on Cheshire because of the diverter e which does not allow them to go on through. Those who wanted the diverter at one time are now in the middle of the parking situation. Mr. Obie stated that he is uncomfortable with having so few people in the community involved in park planning. He would like to see a parks board devel- oped and have that board assist in seeing that the plan is implemented. If citizens recommended items, it would be easier for the council to approve. Ms. Wooten stated agreement but does not think it should be a freestanding committee. She feels it should be attached to the Joint Parks Committee. Mr. Obie indicated agreement on Ms. Wooten's comments. Ms. Schue agreed, and said she feels the Parks Department needs more involvement from citizen groups. The role of the Joint Parks Committee needs to be more clearly defined as to whether they advise the City Councilor the Parks Department and the level of concern needs to be identified. Much citizen involvement has gone into the master plan. She would like more citizen involvement in parks, but would like to see it done at another time. Mr. Gleason stated that staff may be at a point that the council should examine citizen participation in the various boards/commissions. The "charges" from the council to the boards/commissions should be clear and consistent from commission to commission and to the staffing departments. Ms. Wooten asked if Mr. Obie is suggesting a commitee to advise on future parks planning which entails additional citizen involvement. Mr. Obie indicated that he is. Ms. Wooten stated she feels this concept could be looked at and might help provide direction for staff. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Paqe 9 Ms. Smith asked if staff is considering creation of a committee to review pending acquisitions and asked about the time frame of these acquisitions. e Mr. Gleason stated that if council would like to change the direction, they should say so now. If nothing is said, the plan is to spend the money before January without further review since this is part of an existing plan. Ms. Smith indicated she feels staff should proceed with the seven parcels and expand the advisory committee for future planning. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the authorization for purchase of property located adjacent to Skinner Butte Park at Cheshire and Lawrence streets. Mr. Haws asked if this purchase would occur within this year. Mr. Gleason indicated that this and other proposed acquisitions are being pursued as fast as possible. Ms. Wooten indicated that she has concerns which she has conveyed previously regarding displacement of those in low-income housing. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gleason indicated that the community participation issue will be brought back in the process of the master plan. VI. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED VACATION OF WILLAMETTE STREET BETWEEN 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Ed Smith, Development Director of Eugene Performing Arts Center. e Mr. Smith stated that at the direction of the City Council, staff has reviewed the possibility of leaving Willamette Street open for vehicular traffic upon completion of the Performing Arts Center. He showed maps and stated that there are several options available, but they are limited because of the reduced width street. Because of construction that has occurred, it would be extremely difficult to return Willamette Street to the original width. The Eugene Per- forming Arts Center lobby as proposed, would extend into the original street width but it would not be a problem if the street width were only 35 feet. They would like to limit design restrictions to a 35-foot space so they do not have to redesign the facility. Past decisions have pre-empted some of the right-of-way in its original design. He would recommend the following process for examination of alternatives to vacating Willamette Street: 1) council directs the Civic Center Commission and staff to provide the council with some design alternatives showing Willamette Street open for vehicular traffic and alternatives showing Willamette Street closed; 2) the Civic Center Commission be authorized to commission a design professional, if necessary, to assist in the I process and that any extra funds required to do this be withdrawn from the bond interest earnings; 3) that the Civic Center Commission report back to the council with the information within 90 days; and 4) the council review these alternatives and decide on a course of action no later than November. This would not adversely affect the construction schedule providing that the existing construction is accepted and the analysis would be limited to a reduced-width street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 10 . . Mr. Haws asked for clarification as to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Smith e stated that the Civic Center Commission would present alternatives to the council regarding both ways, open and closed; then the council could decide. Mr. Gleason noted that area was shown in the master plan as a pedestrian way, but the council requested a re-examination of this area. The design issue would be restricted to a 35-foot width, but he feels the council should decide what the right-of-way will be used for and what it is to achieve. It is up to the council to make a decision. There should be a thorough examination of this issue because it is important for transportation and access. It will take some time to finance the final development proposal decision. Mr. Haws stated he felt this was decided this way originally so the view of Skinner Butte would not be impaired. Mr. Smith stated this was taken into consideration. The master plan shows this street as closed. Mr. Haws stated he has always assumed that the street would be closed. Ms. Smith indicated that she had taken a tour of the area yesterday. The decision today should be how to use the 35-foot width, not whether there should be a 50-foot wide street. Concentrating on only the 35-foot width would allow the street to be open or remain closed. Staff could explore the alternatives, but she would not like to see construction delayed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the concept of the 35-foot street width and requested a report be brought back within 90 days from a committee composed of Les Anderson, two Civic Center commissioners, two Planning commissioners, and two City councilors appointed by the Mayor. e Ms. Schue supported the motion. Ms. Wooten asked if the 90-day time period is realistic so as not to curtail construction. She does not wish to create problems. Mr. Gleason stated that if vehicular traffic is regulated, due to the 35-foot width, it will not impede activities. A decision, however, must be reached within 90 days. Mr. Smith added that in November the next phase of construction will be occurring and this really should be decided by then so as not to cause problems. Mr. Haws indicated that he would vote "no." Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Haws voting no. VI!. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDING (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Susan Smernoff, Planning. Ms. Smernoff stated that the Eugene Economic Development Committee passed a motion at the May 19, 1981, meeting to recommend to the City Council that the council request the City Attorney's Office to begin preparations for seeking a declaratory judgment on the City's authority to issue industrial revenue bonds. The reason for this decision was: a concern that the State Legislature will modify the existing statute concerning the issuance of IRBs by the State Department of Economic Development to make it more difficult for and/or prohibit Eugene firms from applying for IRBs. Such changes would make it advantageous for the City to coordinate its own bonding program rather than having the use of only the State program. The other point is a belief that the authority e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 11 . . . to issue bonds is implicit in the City's Home Rule Charter and that the existing State statute does not limit bonding authority to the State Department of e Economic Development or cities with a population greater than 300,000. Ms. Wooten stated that she would support the recommendation to seek a declaratory judgment, but would like guidelines for use of the program discussed first. Mayor Keller asked if this would be part of the process. Ms. Smernoff responded that it would. Mr. Lindberg noted that industrial revenue bonds have been approved for other areas. He asked if there are ways in which we can take advantage of these bonds. He requested a staff report. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to request the City Attorney's Office to begin preparations for seeking a declara- tory judgment on the City's authority to issue industrial rev- enue bonds based on the City's Home Rule Charter. Mr. Haws stated he feels there has been enough evidence presented--both pros and cons. Ms. Wooten stated that the EEDC is not looking at this program as the only financing mechanism. Bonding programs have been abused in areas in the East and she would like more information about who the program would serve. Over-bonding is also becoming a problem in some areas. Mr. Gleason stated that 48 states currently have industrial revenue bonding programs. By not doing it, the State is penalized. Oregon's program makes it difficult for some Eugene firms to take advantage of the Federal tax code. A bonding program would be an extension of the Federal tax code rather than an extension of the City's amount of credit. The National League of Cities has taken an opposing view- point to this program because in some cases it has been used as a grant rather than as an incentive. e Mr. Haws asked for clarification and Mr. Gleason responded that this is a legal question. The City is saying we can issue bonds under the Home Rule Charter. It would be less expensive to seek a declaratory judgment rather than going through private enterprise and losing investments because of court cases. If the declaratory judgment is favorable then the council can decide if they wish to have an industrial revenue bond program. Mr. Haws asked for clarifi- cation of the process. Mayor Keller stated that the Economic Development Committee favors looking into a bonding program for the City. Staff feels it would be beneficial to the City. The committee hoped the State program would be changed through the Legislature, but that has not happened. The declaratory judgment will give a valid determination on the authority of the City to estab- lish its own program. Mr. Lindberg stated that he feels that each jurisdiction could use this as a tool for achieving the public good; it would be a good idea. Some areas have used it for supporting private enterprise rather than the public good. If the council can be assured that the City's authority is legal and criteria can be developed to achieve economic development goals, this would be a good idea. He feels staff should proceed at least to the point of getting a declara- tory judgment issued. Ms. Wooten stated that staff needs to see if this can be done and then council can decide if they want to or not. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 12 ~-- , -i: , Mr. Haws asked how much this will cost. Ms. Smernoff stated that it could cost $2,000-$5,000. If the decision in court is not appealed, it could cost e less than $2,000. Les Swanson, City Attorney, stated that he feels the esti- mate is accurate; if the council has no interest, then any expenditure would be wasted. However, if there is interest, he feels this is a reasonable price to pay. Bond council could come forth and approve bond issuance and make the decision. Mr. Haws asked if Mr. Swanson would speak to the bond council fi rst. Mr. Swanson responded that that is his understanding and he will ask them if they will back the bonds. Mr. Haws asked if there is anyone else who could share the cost of the expenses. Mayor Keller stated that because of the Home Rule Charter, it is not likely. There are those who would like to see it eroded and it is good to try since the council feels strongly about it. Mr. Haws asked what the other jurisdictions are doing. Mayor Keller responded that Portland has the specific authority to issue bonds, but there is a large concern about small communities having the ability to administer a bond program. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~ Micheal D. Gleason e City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:kb/CM26a1 e I MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 13