Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/27/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 27, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Nancy Nathanson, George Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Items from Council, Mayor, and City Manager Ms. Bettman thanked the City Manager and Information Services Division for placing a statement on the City's Web site informing the public that when they communicate with the mayor or City Councilors via -e- mail their communications are considered public information. She also thanked the Chamber of Commerce for its sponsorship of the Business-to-Business Expo held at the Lane County Fairgrounds. She mentioned that she recently attended a lecture by Yolanda King at the McDonald Theater and thanked Betty Snowden for initiating the event. She said she presented Ms. King with a Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard sign and noted that Eugene had received favorable recognition for its renaming of Centennial Boulevard in a documentary that was shown nationwide. Ms. Bettman stated she had registered for the "Walk A Mile" program, which made politics personal by pairing elected officials with volunteers from the community. She said the elected officials would share activities with volunteers and attempt to live on a food stamp budget for a month. She encouraged other councilors to register for the program. She said the Eugene Tree Foundation was interested in creating a heritage tree program and asked the City Manager to follow up on the item with information on how the City could assist in those efforts. Ms. Taylor said she attended a performance by Molly Ivins, a political columnist, at the McDonald Theater and expressed her appreciation that the theater had been preserved for performances. She commented that many people were concerned over elimination of a coffee shop located at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street and expressed her regret at the loss of a local business. Mr. Poling announced that on October 30, 2003, at the Willakenzie School, there would be a meeting between neighbors and 4J School District officials to discuss the neighborhood's ideas about future use of the Willakenzie School site. He thanked the people who had applied for positions on the various boards and commissions. He said there were many excellent applicants and encouraged those applicants who were not interviewed to continue to apply. Mr. Pap~ commented that there had been several suggestions from councilors about ways to improve the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 1 Work Session boards and commissions selection process and expressed the hope that the subject could be addressed at the council's next process session. He thanked the City Manager for the memo regarding the Jefferson Street/Washington Street access ramps to and from Interstate 105, but expressed concern over the safety of the intersection and asked that the City review traffic signal patterns. He congratulated the City and Finance Manager Cindi Hamm for the financial management award received for the presentation of the City's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget. Ms. Nathanson also congratulated the City on the financial management award and asked the City Manager to provide, in anticipation of the upcoming budget cycle, information on the value of a good bond rating. She indicated her interest was in the financial implications to the City, in terms of dollars, of a good bond rating as compared to lower bond ratings. She stated she would be requesting assistance from City staff to write a motion proposing funding for cattery services for a short period of time. She characterized the motion as ;;bridge" funding until a more permanent solution was reached. She expressed concern over the current situation and suggested that the issue of permanent funding be rethought. She offered examples of previous bridge funding provided to other organizations and programs. Mr. Meisner said he would likely support a request for one-time bridge funding, but not to provide cattery services for the entire county as that was not the responsibility of City taxpayers. He also echoed Mr. Pap6's request to monitor traffic safety at the Washington Street, Jefferson Street, 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue intersections. He added that the River Road and BeEline intersection was also the subject of complaints from the public. He said he recently observed the intersection and the problem appeared to be with the north and south traffic on River Road, rather than with BeEline operations. He asked the City Manager for information on how the City and County could work together to improve the intersection. Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:45 p.m. Ms. Solomon stated she joined Mayor Torrey in complimenting the Planning and Development Department for assisting with the dedication of the Northwest Christian College community event center. She said the dedication ceremony was a success and the center was a wonderful addition to the community. Mr. Kelly thanked the Chamber of Commerce for the Business-to-Business Expo. He also thanked the General Services Administration (GSA) for responding to community sentiment by including a ramp in the federal courthouse design. He reported that the 2050 Policy Board and staff from all of the participating jurisdictions had previously developed a scenario, based on current growth management practices, of what the local area would look like in 50 years. In the next step, he said, three other scenarios were developed, using different approaches, to accommodate the same population growth. He said the three approaches were: · put the vast majority of the population and job growth in Eugene and Springfield; · concentrated urban development where the smaller cities absorb a greater percentage of both population and jobs, but at small-city densities; and · eliminate land use laws and permit significantly more development in rural areas, at rural densi- ties. Mr. Kelly said staff from the various jurisdictions were now calculating the impact on transportation, air and water quality, and other considerations for each scenario. Once the calculations were completed, he said MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 2 Work Session the scenarios would be made available for public review and comment, probably in early 2004. He announced that there would be a meeting on November 5, 2003, of the West University Neighborhood Association and, for the first time in a decade, a new board would be elected. City Manager Dennis Taylor stated he had distributed a copy of a letter from the GSA regarding the remaining issues with the federal courthouse project. He reported that his meeting with GSA representatives was productive and the primary concern expressed by GSA related to pending federal funding to the City for the necessary road work around the courthouse site. He said the GSA was seeking from the City a clear alternative strategy for funding the roads in the unlikely event that federal funding was not forthcoming in a timely manner. He acknowledged the City's limited financial resources and explained that urban renewal district funds could be used to articulate an alternative to federal funding. He urged the council, when it met as the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency, to consider the proposed projects and amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan and the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, which included the courthouse area transportation improvements and potential use of urban renewal funds bonding, as an alternative funding strategy to address GSA concerns. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Taylor if the City had fulfilled its obligations under the contract with the GSA to purchase the courthouse site. Mr. Taylor replied that the City had responded to the GSA with a letter outlining how it had met its obligations. Ms. Bettman stated that the contract terms had been negotiated in an executive session and now the GSA was asking for an additional $7 million in commitments from the City, which translated into requesting a discount on the cost of the project after the fact. She asked why those changes were not negotiated in a closed session as they modified the terms of a land sale and whether the contract had been written to protect the City. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the contract, which was a memorandum of understanding, stated that the GSA had to purchase the property, but did not specify when the purchase had to occur. Mr. Taylor said that the GSA could argue that purchase could be delayed pending congressional action on transportation reauthorization and Lane County funding priorities for Eugene. Mayor Torrey suggested that comments from the council and mayor be concluded and then the issue of the courthouse project could be addressed in greater detail when the council convened as the Urban Renewal Agency. Mayor Torrey congratulated Ms. Bettman for her presentation at the Yolanda King event. She thought the City should be gathering suggestions for future street names. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the City Council and opened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. B. WORK SESSION: Proposed Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District Projects Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman explained that the purpose of the work session was to discuss projects for inclusion in the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan update, which had been previously discussed by the council in January, February, and April 2003. He said that staff had responded to the council's requests to consider projects and provide concepts for expanding the Urban Renewal District. He illustrated the additional potential areas on a map of the district. He said the new project ideas MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 3 Work Session listed in Attachment A of the agenda item summary had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and councilors could add or subtract projects from the list. He introduced Charles Kupper, the City's urban renewal consultant, who was available to answer questions. Mr. Kupper cited the urban renewal plan requirement in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 457 that stated a description must be provided of each urban renewal project to be undertaken. He said the definition was very broadly written and suggested that urban renewal agencies look at a list of project activities as a set of authorizations. He said when a project emerged that did not easily fit within the list of authorizations, it could require a plan change. According to Mr. Kupper, plan changes could be relatively simple, or an extensive, expensive process. He recommended that plan activities be written as flexibly and broadly as possible to meet changing circum- stances and to avoid the need to frequently amend the plan. He added that having flexibility in the plan activities was the best way to ensure the City could take advantage of development and investment opportunities as they emerged, rather than having to initiate a lengthy amendment process. He cited language from the staff report that proposed a general category, artwork and water features, and listed examples of site-specific projects in the category. He said that typically, urban renewal plans now followed that type of format with a broad category and citation of specific projects. Mr. Weinman noted that under State law, the riverfront plan could be amended by the addition of up to 29 acres; blocks 1 through 9 on the map totaled approximately 21 acres. Ms. Taylor said that urban renewal was once again on tax bills, after not being shown on them for several years. She asked if that meant funds were coming from a different source, if citizens were paying more for it, or if it was still just a diversion. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge replied that the way urban renewal taxes were shown on the tax bill had changed because of the Shiloh Inn court case that challenged Measure 5 categorization of urban renewal taxes. She said as a result of that case, urban renewal taxes were now shown as a line item under general government on tax bills. She explained that prior to the court case decision, urban renewal taxes were embedded in each tax rate and not shown as a separate line item. Ms. Taylor asked if that meant people were paying more for urban renewal or if funds were diverted from taxes that would have gone elsewhere. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the change only addressed how the tax was displayed on tax bills; what the urban renewal district received was now shown as a specific item on a tax bill. She added that some properties might pay slightly more because of Measure 5 compression issues. Ms. Taylor noted staff had referred to the district as the ~Riverfront Research Park" rather than the Riverfront District. Mr. Weinman replied that technically the area was still called the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District, but staff was suggesting it be designated the Riverfront District if the plan was amended. Ms. Taylor asked staff to provide information to the following: · Total income received by the district since it went into effect · List of expenditures and the total amount of expenditures to date, including the road · Current amount in the urban renewal fund · Anticipated income for the remaining life of the district, assuming it was not renewed MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 4 Work Session · If renewed, the expectations per year. Will renewal result in higher taxes or less revenue for other entities? · What entities, such as the schools or County, would experience reduced income because of the urban renewal district, and by what percentage? Ms. Taylor expressed her concern that there were no fiscal controls on the funds; it could be spent at staffs discretion. Mr. Meisner disagreed with Ms. Taylor's statement and said it was up to the council to control the fund through annual budget decisions and approvals. He stated that in general he was supportive of retaining the district, changing the name, and extending the boundary to allow improvements along East Broadway. He said he was not interested in expanding the boundary to the north to include the Fifth Street Market area. He concurred with Ms. Taylor's list of questions regarding various financial issues and commented that the list of projects was all inclusive. He stated his concern that approving the proposed motion to use the district to fund transportation improvements would supplant the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the improvement of State highways. He said he did not want efforts to assure GSA of alternative transportation funding plan to send the message to Congress that the City was willing to pay for transportation improvements. Mr. Kelly remarked that he generally supported the concept of extending the urban renewal district boundaries. He stated he had reservations about the use of very general language in the plan. He said that asking taxpayers to either make funds available specifically for urban renewal or to forego other services within a fixed pot of money to fund the improvements was reasonable if a collection of projects could be specifically described. He said that while he was not advocating for extremely specific project descriptions and cost estimates, he did thing the public should be shown a level of vision and descriptions that were more focused that the proposed language. Mr. Kelly requested for a written response from staff on what would happen, assuming the proposed plan amendments were adopted, if a project that clearly fitted within the parameters of the plan emerged. He provided the example of land acquisition. He asked if the council, sitting as the Urban Renewal Agency, would have to authorize expenditures for a project or if staff could authorize a project alone. Mr. Kupper replied that in the case of land acquisition, the plan would have to specify the lands to be acquired before they were acquired. He said specific properties would either be listed in the plan at the beginning or included through a plan amendment approved by the council sitting as the Urban Renewal Agency. He said if the renewal plan authorized placing curb and sidewalks at an as yet unidentified location in the urban renewal area and a specific site was later identified, the agency could proceed with the project without a formal plan amendment because it already had the authorization to do curbs and sidewalks. He said that he assumed staff would consult with the agency before proceeding. Mr. Kelly reiterated his request for a written response, stating he wanted a flexible plan, but did not want to write a blank check. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson added that the council also retained authority over urban renewal funds through the appropriations process, which required that funds were appropriated before staff could spend them, and typically 100 percent of the available urban renewal resources were not appropriated. He referred MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 5 Work Session to the downtown library project, in which the council's approval was requested a number of times for specific actions related to using various assets. Mr. Kelly said he did not recall previous capital appropriations to the district being tied to a specific project and asked that the issue be addressed in the written response. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the council could establish rules requiring authorization by the Urban Renewal Agency of any construction or infrastructure projects that exceeded a certain amount, such as $50,000. Mr. Kupper agreed, and said that there were other plans in effect that required amendments for any new or substantially different projects that exceeded a certain dollar amount. Mr. Pap~ echoed Mr. Kelly's and Mr. Meisner's statements about expansion of the district and asked for reasons why blocks 10 through 14 should be included. Mr. Weinman replied that staff had responded to the council's request for as many options and opportunities as possible and those blocks could represent future opportunities. Mr. Pap~ said because of the federal courthouse project, it made the most sense to consider blocks 1 through 11. Ms. Bettman commented that she had heard from small business owners who had moved out of downtown because rents were too high. She said the intent of urban renewal district was to restore blighted areas where there was a severe lack of investment because of limited resources or a concentration of low-income residents who needed assistance. She said the proposal did not appear to meet the intent of urban renewal and diverted funds the City could use for schools and essential services. She cited language in the agenda item summary that stated if the Urban Renewal Agency and City Council selected specific projects, revenue for those projects must be accounted for in a ~report" and stated she did not understand the staff recommen- dation to not select specific projects. She asked if that meant the nonspecific, flexible approach would result in a report that did not have delineated costs. Mr. Kupper responded that the report on the urban renewal plan must account for project activities that would be carried out and how much money the agency intended to spend, but the specificity of the table in the report depended on how specific the agency was in describing the projects it wanted to fund. He gave as an example a table and report that stated %treet improvements, $10 million" or a table and report that specified the streets to be improved under that category and the costs associated with each. He said that either approach was legally acceptable and the method used depended on how specific the community was in defining the activities in the plan. Ms. Bettman said that the community had articulated a priority for school funding and urban renewal diverted funds from essential services and schools. Ms. Nathanson said she interpreted the proposal as determining whether to continue and for how long and whether to expand the urban renewal district. She said that the economic situation for the school districts or any other taxing authority could be affected, depending on the decision, not at all or by a percentage. She said the proposal was not to start something new or to double or triple the impact for schools. Ms. Nathanson stated she preferred the general approach to plan activities over a specific list because the council had final authority over budget approval when projects were proposed, and because the district would not accumulate money at a fast rate. She said that when sufficient funds had accumulated for a particular project, public values might have changed and lighting or a water feature might be more important than sidewalk improvement. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Referring to reports she had seen during her service on the Planning Commission, Ms. Nathanson asked staff for a report on the renewal district that provided information on improved land value in a ratio instead of raw numbers so it was easier to see which blocks were more blighted and which were ripe for redevelop- ment. Mr. Kelly asked for information prior to the next work session on how continuation of the urban renewal district would affect other taxing authorities such as school districts, including the magnitude of revenue impacts. He also asked for the same analysis based on expanding the renewal district boundaries. Referring to sections 600(C)(2) and 600(C)(3), he asked for a response from Mr. Kupper before the next work session on whether land acquisitions were permitted without a plan amendment in certain circumstances. As an example of the specificity that a urban renewal plan could provide, Mr. Kelly cited a passage from the Portland River District Urban Renewal Pan as an example of language that established housing as a project without identifying a specific location, but did specify targets for percentages of housing for low-, moderate- , and middle-income populations. He cited two other projects that were specifically identified in the plan. Regarding the diversion of funds from essential services and schools, Ms. Bettman commented that the issue was not just continuing the existing district, but expanding it by a significant amount and taking into account a lot of revenue-producing areas in which the City and taxpayers had invested a good amount of money that affected housing, the library, and transportation improvements. She said taxpayers expected the investment would return to them in terms of more revenue for things such as essential services, public safety, and schools. She asked staff to examine how the expansion of the district would affect money that would normally go to schools. She said that because the money was diverted from the general fund and school districts, whatever projects it funded had to be very high priority projects. She noted that a new police station and a new city hall would have to be built within the next decade and would be good projects for urban renewal funds. Mr. Pap6 added his request for information on the financial impacts to those of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly and asked that the reports be provided to councilors prior to the next work session. Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to pre- pare amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan that include project activities noted in Attachment A, and an expanded boundary as noted in At- tachment C. Mayor Torrey asked for a motion to extend the time for discussion of the item. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to extend the time for 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Meisner stated he would support Mr. Pap6's motion, but expressed concern with the expansion. Referring to newly added areas as a result of boundary expansion, he asked if only increments after that time would be diverted to urban renewal. Mr. Weinman said that was correct. Mr. Meisner said he wanted to carefully tailor any expansion of the district and did not support going east of MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Hilyard Street. He said that the inclusion of blocks 1 through 6 made sense, but he was uncertain about block 7. He said he was opposed to the inclusion of blocks 8 and 9. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to amend the motion by striking lots in block 8 and block 9 from Attachment C. Ms. Nathanson asked for staff's reaction to the inclusion or exclusion of block 8 and block 9. Mr. Weinman replied that those blocks were included as an option solely for discussion and did not represent a staff recommendation. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Weinman identified several food service businesses that currently occupied portions of block 8 and block 9. Mr. Kelly said the blocks seemed distant from the council's purpose and he supported the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap6 opposed. Ms. Bettman said that she had just seen the proposed plan with the additional properties and the motion and amendment were very definitive. She said many questions had not yet been answered and she saw no hurry to have staff come back with an amended plan on the basis of the material before the council. She said it was likely that information provided by staff would necessitate further amendments. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to table the motion until the next work session. Mr. Weinman clarified that staff had requested direction from the council so that information and a financial analysis could be prepared for the council's discussions based on a definite boundary. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that tabling the motion would not provide the council with more details for discussion. He said he strongly supported the concept of the urban renewal district but had concerns with the specifics currently under consideration. Mr. Meisner said he supported the main motion for many of the reasons stated by Mr. Kelly. He said a more specific version of the plan was necessary for the council to consider and present to the public. Ms. Bettman asked when the next work session or council meeting on the subject was scheduled. Staff replied that work sessions were scheduled for November 19, 2003, and January 12, 2004. Ms. Bettman said she would be satisfied if more time could be provided for discussion of the item at the next work session. The motion to table until November 19, 2003, failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting for the motion. Mr. Kelly said that although he voted against the motion to table, he agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments regarding the complexity of the issue and the financial impact. He concurred with Mr. Papa's earlier suggestion that language be included in the plan that would require projects over a certain dollar amount come back to the council for specific approval. He cited the Portland plan for its exemplary public involvement process and commented that the Riverfront Research Park proposed plan did not have sufficient MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 8 Work Session opportunities for public input. He asked staff to return to the next work session with suggestions for a public involvement process modeled on the Portland plan. Mr. Pap6 asked for clarification on how frequently and to what extent the urban renewal district could be expanded. Mr. Kupper replied that expansion was limited to a maximum of 20 percent of the acreage, which would equal 29 acres. He said that could be done incrementally in several amendments or one amendment that included 29 acres. He said if any of the amendments exceeded 1 percent of the existing acreage, it could trigger a substantial plan change. Mr. Pap6 stated he was concerned about block 8 as it fronted on Hilyard Street and was close to the former AgriPac site, which was the area considered for redevelopment. He urged the council to consider including block 8 in the renewal district boundary. Ms. Bettman stated her fear of the suggestion in the plan to bond for money, which committed future generations to pay off projects, including transportation projects that had other funding sources available to them. She said she had a problem with creating indebtedness for future citizens, rather than saving up the incremental increase in tax and then spending it. She asked staff to provide an analysis of the number of housing units on the blocks proposed for inclusion in the expanded boundary. She said she would vote against the main motion because of how broadly it was stated. Mr. Kelly referred to several questions he had raised during the April 23, 2003, meeting on the issue and asked for responses to those questions before the next work session. Referring to the project ideas provided by staff, he asked for language in the plan regarding transportation improvements that improved access that would clarify urban renewal funds would be used only to the extent that system development charges (SDC) and assessment were not available. He also asked for language more specifically relating to the Mill Race and to preservation of nature features along the river bank. Further, he asked for an explanation of the statement in the plan relating to assistance with new construction of public and private improvements. The main motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor opposed. Mr. Taylor provided corrections to a suggestion motion he had sent to councilors prior to the meeting. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to extend the time for the item by 10 minutes. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman opposed. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to in- clude in the urban renewal riverfront plan the transportation infrastructure to sup- port the development of the federal courthouse project and the redevelopment of the courthouse district, including the use of the urban renewal tax increment revenues and other revenues received by the district, such as State or County road funds, as well as the use of bonds, such sources of revenue to be used only in the event that federal funding through transportation reauthorization is insufficient. Mr. Meisner confirmed that the motion directed staff to bring back language for the plan rather than adopting the language. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Meisner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly remarked that the council had repeatedly expressed its support for the new federal courthouse and partnership with the GSA. He stated his confusion over the language of the motion and what it was and was not saying. He said the motion directed the City Manager to include language in the Urban Renewal Riverfront Plan, but noted that the City Manager could not include language in the plan, only the Urban Renewal Agency could. Mayor Torrey pointed out that the council was still sitting as the Urban Renewal Agency. Mr. Kelly asked what Mr. Taylor's title was in relation to the Urban Renewal Agency. Mr. Taylor replied his designation was agency director. From the perspective of the Urban Renewal Agency, Mr. Kelly asked if it would be more appropriate for the motion to direct the Urban Renewal Agency Director, rather than the City Manager. Mr. Taylor reiterated that the intent of the motion was to send a clear signal about the City's alternative plan for funding transportation infrastructure improvements. He said the language of the motion was acceptable to the GSA. Mayor Torrey asked why the GSA would have a preference as long as it was understood that the terminol- ogy was interchangeable. Mr. Klein said that the terms "director" and "City Manager" meant the same thing and concurred with Mr. Kelly's assessment that the motion would direct the director to include in the package of amendments for the agency's consideration, following a public hearing, the language relating to transportation infrastructure funding. Mr. Carlson said the purpose was to provide assurances to the GSA so it could take action to purchase the property. He said waiting for further action by the agency on actual adoption of the riverfront plan amendments would delay the signal until sometime in early 2004. Mr. Kelly argued that an immediate commitment would then require action on a motion for the agency to include backup funding for transportation infrastructure, rather than directing staff to include such language. Mr. Carlson said the key was a commitment from the Urban Renewal Agency to give the GSA some assurance that there was an option. Mr. Kelly moved to direct the Urban Renewal Agency Director to include in the next draft of the Urban Renewal Riverfront Plan the transportation infrastructure to support the development of the federal courthouse project and the redevelopment of the courthouse district, including the use of the urban renewal tax increment reve- nues and other revenues received by the district, such as State or County road funds, as well as the use of bonds, such sources of revenue to be used only in the event that federal funding through transportation reauthorization is insufficient. Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Nathanson accepted the motion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said the purpose of the letter from the GSA was to have a commitment from the City that if MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 10 Work Session federal funding was not available, it was willing to utilize Eugene taxpayers to pay for the $7.8 million in transportation infrastructure. She said in addition the GSA suggested that money from the sale of the property should be invested in the urban renewal district. She commented that the money was apparently borrowed from the Fleet Fund and if not paid back, the taxpayers would again be responsible. She stated her biggest problem with the motion was that GSA was asking for a commitment from the City to pay for the infrastructure, and had added more transportation infrastructure than what had been elevated in priority in the capital improvement program (CIP), such as the overpass. She said the request for $10 million, $20 million, or $30 million in additional improvement should be considered a renegotiation of the existing contract and addressed in an executive session. Mr. Taylor said the City was trying to address the GSA's concerns by demonstrating it had a legal way to ensure that the courthouse would not be an island without pedestrian and vehicle access, consistent with the plan the City had articulated, by identifying urban renew funds as a secondary plan for funding. Ms. Bettman asked why the GSA contract was not enforceable if the City had met its obligations. Mr. Klein responded that the contract was enforceable and that the GSA was obligated to purchase the property. He said the GSA was not obligated to construct the courthouse under the terms of the contract and was seeking the additional assurances in order to proceed. Ms. Nathanson asked for an explanation of the "additional" improvements the GSA had requested. Mr. Taylor said the GSA had expressed a preference for the project as articulated in two phases: Phase 1 for $1.7 million, and Phase 2, the balance, which totaled $7.6 million in its entirety. He said if that could be delivered through federal funding, it would meet all of the concerns and allow the GSA to go forward with the construction schedule. He said the pedestrian bridge would not be required, as the GSA preferred the at- grade solution. He said if only part of that could be delivered, the GSA wanted to ensure that there was some way for pedestrian access to the site. Ms. Nathanson said it did not appear that $10 million to $30 million additional improvements were actually requested, given that both the City and the GSA preferred an at-grade solution. She said there was no authorization to automatically spend funds to relieve the federal government of its obligation to provide funding. She asked how likely it was that the alternative funding plan would need to be implemented. Mr. Taylor said he thought that federal funding would be forthcoming, based on assurances from members of the congressional delegation. Ms. Nathanson said she could support the proposal as a backup strategy as long as it was understood that the strategy was not a substitute for the plan for federal funding. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to extend discussion of the item un- til 7:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Taylor replied that the total of $7.6 million included the $1.7 million. Mr. Pap~ asked staff to provide an analysis of how firm those numbers were, the source of the estimates, and what would happen if the costs were higher. He expressed concern that the City would find itself in the same position it experienced with the Ferry Street bridge project. He said the proposal was acceptable as a MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 11 Work Session backup, but stated his concern about using urban renewal funds for transportation at the expense of other projects for a number of years. Mayor Torrey declared his hope that passing the motion would reaffirm the City's commitment to the transportation arterials designations that were part of the plan adopted in July 2002. He said he felt confident that Oregon's congressional delegation would obtain the federal transportation funding for the project. He asked what the City would do with the proceeds of the land purchase to redevelop the area if, hypothetically, the courthouse was not built. He suggested that the planned infrastructure was appropriate, with or without the courthouse on the property, and the City should proceed to build it as the highest and best use of those lands in the future. He added that ODOT could be asked for funds to improve and enhance a system in one of the State's largest cities. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that there were no guarantees of federal funding, but he also thought that the unanimous support of the congressional delegation boded well for approval of the request for funding. He thanked Mr. Kelly for his friendly amendment, which clarified the action being considered. He expressed reservations about committing the City to pay for improvements until the precise nature of the improvements and costs were known and appreciated the opportunity to review language at the next work session. He said he would support the amended motion. Mr. Kelly explained that the motion before the agency indicated that the concept of a backup plan had enough merit to warrant requesting staff to prepare language to be considered in the next draft of the urban renewal plan. He said he would support the motion with the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly said an important consideration when the projected revenues from the urban renewal district were reviewed was whether the backup plan would use all of the revenues for the next decade, at the expense of all other projects in the district. He pointed out that the GSA's letter stated if the $7.6 million for both project phases was available for the 2005 construction season, no pedestrian overpass was necessary; however, if only the $1.7 million was available, an overpass was necessary and that would increase total costs to approximately $10 million. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the motion as stated, but would consider language that agreed to consider other ways to fund the transportation infrastructure if federal funding was not available, instead of committing to bonds. She said her estimate of $10 million to $30 million in costs was based on an assumption that the $7.8 million figure in the CIP, which was an old figure, had inflated. She listed several other site improvements identified in the GSA letter that she felt the City was being asked to fund. She noted that the 6th Avenue arterial was a state highway and identifying urban renewal funds as a source of financing removed the incentive for the County, State, or federal government to provide funds. Mr. Pap6 asked if ODOT had been contacted regarding availability of resources as part of the secondary plan for transportation infrastructure. He also requested information on the amount of funds that were in the district and available. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that, to the extent that federal agencies were involved in advising Congress on projects to include in the transportation authorization, both the GSA and the courts administration agency would add their support to that of the congressional delegation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 12 Work Session Mayor Torrey said that his conversation with Congressman Peter DeFazio had assured him that adopting a backup strategy for funding transportation infrastructure would not have an adverse affect on the provision of federal funding and that it was understood that the City was only responding to a request from GSA, rather than proposing alternative funding. He said that ODOT was not likely to step forward with funding as long as federal funding was forthcoming. He said the question was how badly the City wanted the courthouse. Ms. Taylor said she would not support the motion because of the possibility of committing taxpayers. The motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor opposed. C. WORK SESSION: Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Projects This item was not discussed. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 13 Work Session