Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/1981 Meeting M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council Dinner Meeting Treehouse Restaurant September 14, 1981 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Gus Keller, Councilors Brian Obie, Emily Schue~ Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, Cynthia Wooten, and Gretchen Miller (6:10 to adjournment); Micheal Gleason, City Manager; David Whitlow, Assistant City Manager; Pat Lynch, Council Administrator; Carol Baker, Community Relations Director; Dick Reynolds, Director, Eugene Performing Arts Center; Don Gilman, Assistant Director, Department of Public Works; Doug Cook, Superintendent of Wastewater Management; Bill Guenzler, Mainte- nance Engineer; Mike Tharp, Housing and Renewal Director, Department of Housing and Community Conservation; Susan Pack, Eugene Register- Guard. I. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Northwest Power Bill Advisory Committee .- Mayor Keller announced that Mr. Gleason had been selected as chairperson of an advisory committee working with the Northwest Power Bill. Mr. Keller said that Mr. Gleason would be out of the City one day per month for the work of this committee. Mayor Keller congratulated Mr. Gleason on this appointment. B. City Budget Election Mr. Keller reminded those present of the Tier II budget election on September 15, 1981. II. REGIONAL SEWAGE PROJECTS UPDATE Mr. Gleason introduced Bill Guenzler. Mr. Guenzler explained that the Springfield City Council had recently taken action on several recommendations made by their City Manager regarding current sewage projects. Mr. Guenzler and the staffs of the Eugene and Springfield Departments of Public Works saw this as a sign of increased stability in the regional treatment program. Mr. Guenzler then referred to a series of flip .charts and diagrams explaining the status of budgeting and plans for operation of the new sewage facility. He said that in 1978, CH2M/-Hill had estimated the cost of the project at $104.990 million (including local and Federal matching funds). At one point since then, estimated figures had risen as high as $148 million. Recent bids had, however, been coming in lower than anticipated, with the result that the cost estimate as of July 1981 was $104.828 million. .e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 1 Mr. Guenzler then discussed the status of the project, referring to a chart -- showing, for each of several project elements, the amounts already committed or expended, the amounts yet unfunded, and the amounts needed to complete essential components of the project. Reviewing these figures, Mr. Guenzler' stated that approximately $20 million is still needed to complete essential components. Mr. Guenzler then explained the priorities involved in funding the remaining compo- nents and the use of suggestions by the Department of Environmental Quality in establishing these priorities. Ms. Wooten congratulated the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) on their work to do the job needed with the limited funds available. Ms. Smith noted that Mayor Keller would be telephoning the Oregon Congressional Delegation to lobby one last time for Federal funds for the sewage facility. Mr. Guenzler said that it had originally been thought that the construction of the plant would be completed before operations were begun. It is now recognized that construction and operations will be happening at the same time. For this reason, both staff and the MWMC believe it is important to begin immediate planning for operation of the plant. Mr. Guenzler referred to an executive summary of recommendations, dated July 31, 1981, which contained a report from the Eugene and Springfield Public Works departments to the two City Managers. Mr. Guenzler said that a copy of this report would be sent to each councilor. He explained that the operation plan recommended in the report contains the following elements: 1. Reevaluation of collection sewer systems and decision on how to e deal with excess water. 2. Determination of capacity allocation for each of the cities. Mr. Guenzler explained that a 75/25 percent Eugene/Springfield split of dry weather flow capacity was currently under negotiation. 3. Determination of priorities for remaining elements of the regional fac il ity. 4. Decision on who will operate the facility. The current proposal calls for the City of Eugene to operate the facility and for the City of Springfield to provide staffing for the MWMC. In this way, the commi ss i on and staff can be independent of the operator. 5. Implementation. Mr. Guenzler then discussed specific action which would be requested of the Eugene City Council at its September 16, 1981, meeting. He explained that these same requests had been made to the Springfield City Council. The requests included authorization of agreements on the operation, maintenance, staffing, and budget of the sewage facility. Mr. Guenzler explained that the impact on the City of Eugene of the requested action would be to assure the City 75 percent of the dry weather capacity of the new facility; to allow flexibility in meeting economic development needs by permitting treatment capacity to be dealt e with on a regional basis; and to retain the MWMC as a regional decision-making body. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 2 Mr. Guenzler outlined the steps that would be taken over the next months and e years in development and operation of the facility. These included the two cities' working to find regional solutions to the problems of sludge disposal and of Agripacls discharges. Mr. Obie asked what staff and the MWMC were recommending be done to deal with Apripacls wastes. Mr. Guenzler responded that Agripac will be required to treat its wastes independently from the regional plant, but that the commission felt very strongly that Agripac must not be driven out of the area. The commis- sion was therefore recommending financing through County Service District Bonds which would provide funds that Agripac would not have to pay back. Mr. Gleason elaborated further on this and explained that he had met with both the management and board of directors of Agripac to explain the City's position. He said that Agripacls wastes would represent 37 percent of the capacity of the new plant and that they therefore cannot be left in the system. Mr. Gleason said that three contigency plans have been developed for dealing with Agripac's wastes: 1) a land disposal system; 2) an operational progam of pretreatment by means of trickling filters; and 3) other options, such as moving the plant to a site where disposal can take place more readily. Mr. Gleason reiterated that the city councils and the commission do not want to lose Agripac and will therefore work to make it both feasible and affordable for them to remain here. Mr. Obie asked if the acreages available to Eugene and to Springfield for future industrial development had been taken into consideration in determining the ratios for use of the plant. Mr. Gleason responded that the toxic waste issue is different from the volume issue. He explained that Eugene had received the larger share of volume, but-that Springfield was granted higher levels of e toxicity, as Springfield is the site of more heavy industry. Mr. Guenzler elaborated on this by explaining that each toxic element has its own limit and that the jurisdictions would have to become increasingly stringent in dealing with toxicity as the limits for specific elements are approached. He sai d that the jurisdictions can discuss potential levels of toxicity with industries seeking to locate here and can then bring the issue to the MWMC. He added that if there is a problem with a specific element, industrial pretreatment of - wastes can be required. Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Guenzler for his presentation. III. DOWNTOWN RENEWAL PLAN UPDATE Mr. Gleason introduced Mr. Tharp. Mr. Tharp referred to a map of the area chosen for study by the Renewal Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) in development of a Downtown Revitalization Plan. He said that eight months ago the City Council had established the RPAC and had asked them to make a recommendation on whether the existing renewal area should be expanded and/or whether a new renewal area should be created. He explained that Lyle Stewart, a renewal consultant, had been hired to work with this committee. Mr. Tharp said that the RPAC had recommended that the Central Eugene Renewal Project not be expanded, since the original project has not yet been completed. The RP~had spent some time '", studying a possible new renewal area which would encircle the old project and had concluded by passing the plan resulting from its studies to the Eugene e Renewal Agency with no recommendation to support the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 3 Mr. Tharp said that the new plan was devoted primarily to rehabilitation, e infill, and the strengthening of the infrastructure of the new area through improvements to pedestrian corridors, streets, and the sewer system. Mr. Tharp said that the ERA will hold a hearing on the plan on September 22, 1981, and will then make a recommendation on the plan to the Eugene Planning Commission. He said that the ERA could pass the plan to the Planning Commission with or without a recommenation for adoption and could also revise the plan as it sees fit. Mr. Tharp said that the Planning Commission will have a study session on the plan and will hold a public hearing in November or December. The Planning Commissionls recommendation will then be passed on to the council for a public hearing and possible adoption in late December 1981 or early January 1982. Mr. Tharp said that staff had hoped for a decision before January 1, 1982, to capture the tax increment for the following calendar year, but that the process had taken longer than originally planned, with the result that the deadline might not be met. Mr. Lindberg explained that he had chaired the RPAC. He wanted to make it clear that despite the fact that no recommendation had been made on the plan, the committee had done a great deal of work and made many important decisions regarding the area. The committee had strongly emphasized development of a pedestrian and communication linkage between the Eugene Performing Arts Center and the downtown area through acquisition of property near the railroad tracks currently owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad. The committee had also favored housing rehabilitation efforts in the Whiteaker neighborhood and residen- tial and commmercial mixed-use development of the west side of the downtown area. e Ms. Wooten asked what effect capturing the tax increments for the study area would have on the taxing power of the overlapping jurisdictions. Mr. Tharp explained that over a ten-year period, the study area would draw $30 million from the tax rolls, but that the revitalization which this would finance would produce increased property values when returned to the tax rolls and would therefore more than repay what had been removed. Ms. Wooten asked if establishment of the study area as a renewal area would preclude designating the Four Corners area as a renewal area. Mr. Tharp responded that the legal renewal limit of 15 percent of the assessed valuation of a city would allow both the study area and the Four Corners area to be designated as renewal areas. Responding to further questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Tharp said that the plan developed by the RPAC would playa part in the long-range housing rehabilitation program to protect low-moderate income housing in the downtown area. He said that the issue of displacement must be balanced by the benefit of increased livability. He indicated that the study had favored preservation of existing structures. Ms. Wooten said she wished to discuss this trade-off further before the matter comes before the council. Mr. Lindberg said that as chairer of the RPAC he had received a letter from Acting Superintendent of 4-J Public Schools, Terry Lindquist, who said that the material contained in this study confirmed the school board's decision to close Lincoln School. Mr. Lindberg said that he had responded to Mr. Lindquist e that, on the contrary, the number-one goal of the study was rehabilitation and preservation of existing residences. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 4 ------~ Mr. Lindberg said that the two main feelings expressed at the RPAC hearing on the plan had been fear of tax-increment financing and fear of the ERA. As a . result of the latter, the committee recommended a citizen participation program for any project that is done. Ms. Schue noted that the committee's plan was in conflict with the Housing Dispersal Policy which discourages addition of low-income housing in the down- town area. Mr. Obie expressed strong dissatisfaction with the non-recommendation of the RPAC. ,He said he believed that they had erred in choosing such a large area for study just to get a larger tax increment. Ms. Smith raised the issue of safety downtown. She said that citizens have real feelings of fear of crime regarding the whole downtown area. She fe 1t th at this must be countered by a program of education and communication. Councilors agreed to place discussion of this item on the agenda of their upcoming work/goals session. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Tharp for his presentation. IV. ROOM TAX SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Gleason introduced Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds said that the Room Tax Subcommittee of the City Budget Committee had been directed to examine possible auxiliary funding sources to supplement the room tax fund and to make that fund e more responsive to cultural, tourist, and convention-related requests for funding, and to aid in the publicity and promotion necessary to make Eugene a destination point for the tourist industry. The subcommittee was chaired by Gary Williams and was made up of three members of the Eugene Performing Arts Commission, three members of the Room Tax Committee, and an at-large citizen member. Mr. Reynolds had staffed the subcommittee. Mr. Reynolds distributed copies of a memorandum dated September 14, 1981, outlining the recommendations of the subcommittee to the budget committee and the council. The recommendations were for the establishment of three new taxes as follows: 1. Amusement Machine Tax--a tax of $250 annually for each of the approxi- mately 400 electronic amusement machines in the city. PrOjected to generate $106,000 annually. 2. Gross Receipts Tax on Restaurants--a one percent tax to be added to each patron's bill, excluding alcoholic beverages. Projected to generate $600,000 annually. 3. User Fee for the Performing Arts Center--a 25-cent fee added on to each ticket purchased. Projected to generate $100,000 annually. Mr. Reynolds explained that he would be meeting with the editorial board of the Eugene-Register Guard to discuss these suggestions on September 18, 1981. A council public hearing on the recommendations has been scheduled for October 12, . 1981. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 5 . Mr. Reynolds said that the subcommittee was submitting to the council suggestions on the disbursement of these funds, including the recommendation that room tax funds from the Hilton Hotel be used exclusively for support of the conference center. Mr. Reynolds noted that the Eugene Arts Foundation has said that it will help subsidiz~ the Performing Arts Center in the amount of approximately $270,000 to $300,000 annually for at least five years. Mr. Reynolds told councilors that he had been contacted by some hotel managers in the area who are interested in organizing a county-wide convention and visitors bureau to be financed through a county-wide increase of two percent in room tax fund s. He relayed this information to councilors for their own information but said he did not feel it should affect their decision on the proposed taxes outlined above. Ms. Wooten felt the subcommittee had done a good job of dealing with the compli- c ated prob 1 em. She wanted to be certain citizens understood that these proposed taxes are not a prelude to any suggestion of an overall city sales tax. Ms. Wooten was especially appreciative of the strengthened relations with the Eugene Arts Foundation which resulted from the work of the subcommittee. She noted that the Arts Foundation had invited the council members to join them for dinner in October. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Gleason for a future report to the council from staff on the advantages and disadvantages to the City of annexing Autzen Stadium. e The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Darcy Marentette, Minutes Recorder DM:sba/CM7b1 ~~ II - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 6