Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/19/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall November 19, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency to order. A. WORK SESSION: Proposed Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District Plan - Report and Amendments Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to forward the proposed amend- ments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan to other taxing districts, the Planning Commission, and the public for comment. City Manager Dennis Taylor recommended adjournment of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency until staff had arrived. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at noon. Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the City Council to order at 12:01 p.m. He stated that Item C would be the first order of the meeting. C. WORK SESSION: Sequencing of Financial Measures to be Presented to the Voters Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson explained that this was an opportunity to discuss election sequencing. He noted the previous discussion on this matter had been held in February 2002, and said staff felt the subject should be discussed periodically. He averred that it built upon much of the work the City Council did in multiple arenas such as the Budget Committee meeting, which had discussed the multi-year financial plan on November 17. Mr. Pap~ arrived. Mr. Carlson reported that he and councilors Pap~ and Solomon had attended a League of Oregon Cities session on what a municipality should know before putting a money measure on the ballot. He said materials from the meeting that delineated the result of bond measures and levies around the state since Ballot Measures 47 and 50 passed had been circulated among the council. He related the %asic message" MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 1 Work Session of the meeting, which was that there were limited opportunities to ask voters to approve money measures because of the double-majority requirement. He commented that the requirement slowed things down and many measures had failed because of it. He stated there was a limit to the number of times the City could go to the ballot and that it should be strategic about when it took a measure to the ballot. He noted that school district bond issues bring voters out and recommended the City piggyback on that. Mr. Carlson said the other time available to bring a measure to the voters was in November of even- numbered years. He reported that another lesson learned at the meeting was that the municipality should try not to compete with itself; it was better to pick key measures and focus on them. He cited the example of the County, which had brought six measures before the public in November 2002. He averred this made it difficult to discern where the priority lay. Continuing, Mr. Carlson conveyed the other message given by the presenters, Jim Francesconi of Portland and Larry Lehman of Pendleton, which highlighted the necessity of commitment to winning. There needs to be an active Political Action Committee (PAC) in order to raise money, poll voters, and place arguments in favor in the voters pamphlet. He stressed that these were things staff was unable to do, but that councilors could serve on such a PAC. He added that the City was legally able to send out objective, neutral information on an issue and could circulate citizen surveys. Mr. Carlson asserted that ballot measures typically passed because of emotion rather than economics. He related that the presenters had said that it takes six months to a year to inform the public and get a ballot measure in place. He called attention to the Tentative Election Schedule in Attachment C and requested council direction Mr. Meisner asserted it was not the City's sole responsibility to have its tax payers provide the level of service for non-city residents that the larger district options provided. He encouraged staff to actively work on options that brought the school districts together. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that bond measures only succeeded with the backing of active and effective public support groups. He called this his largest concern regarding the police services building. He felt the Police Commission was being treated as a PAC, which it could not be. Mr. Meisner strongly urged staff to help work at the legislative level to modify the requirement for a double majority for a bond measure to succeed. Ms. Taylor asked about the emotional appeal of a measure and where people who were emotional regarding the police services building were. Mr. Carlson, in response to a question from Ms. Taylor, said the urban renewal district would not include the area on which the police services building was slated to be built. He added that, while the urban renewal district would be a way to fund a portion of the construction of such a building in the riverfront district, there was not enough increment in the riverfront district to support a bond measure of the magnitude needed to construct a new police services building. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Papd commended Mr. Carlson for his accurate report on the meeting he, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Carlson had attended. He related the experience of the City of Pendleton, which had used non-city dollars via a PAC to survey citizens to gain support for a City Hall building. Ms. Bettman commented that the need for the new police facility should not be ignored because it was not as emotional an issue. She voiced her support for it, adding that the addition of urban renewal moneys would indicate the City's commitment. She asserted that the police should be a higher priority than the parks system. Mr. Kelly thought a discussion of a potential bond for parks should wait until after the Mayor's advisory committee made its recommendation. He agreed that the public should be involved through surveys. Mr. Kelly supported setting a bond measure for the police services building before the citizens for a vote, but felt that November 2004 was too soon. Mr. Kelly commented that as much as the youth programs were vital, he did not want to bring that local option levy back as the City had given the State four years to work the education finance issue. Additionally, Mr. Kelly implored the City Council to consider having a discussion of non-property tax revenue. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Carlson affirmed that urban renewal dollars could be used on a public facility. City Attorney Glenn Klein elaborated, stating that the amount that could be used was dictated by the amount of public benefit. Ms. Nathanson asked the City Manager to comment on the City's goal of having a City Facilities Reserve Fund. She asked how the City reserves were faring. Mr. Carlson, noting the discussion held two weeks earlier, said the City intended to put $7 million down on the police services building from the Facilities Reserve Fund. He reminded the council that $900,000 had been pulled from the Facilities Reserve Fund during the previous year's budget process. Mr. Taylor said staff would be returning in the spring with a funding proposal for a new police services building. Ms. Nathanson remarked that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) was chronically understaffed. She asked how much a discussion on adequate staffing levels would impact the construction of a new building. Mr. Taylor responded that there was a greater need to fill positions for officers out on patrol, rather than in the building. He said the real issue was how the Police Department had to interact with citizens; currently there was no facility for this and much of these interactions had to take place outside the building. As such, he stated the need for the building was not completely related to staffing levels. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Carlson commented that the Police Department was basically out of space. He said additional square footage would be required for any new office needs. Mr. Meisner expressed hope that the City could find ways to fund the building with one-time moneys. He suggested staff look into which pieces of the telecommunications money could be used toward the facility. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner remarked that parks were not being adequately maintained due to funding. He wondered if the City could pursue the formation of a metropolitan parks district, along with Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the River Road Recreation District. Mr. Meisner asserted the City needed to demonstrate an efficient use of space to garner support for the new facility. Mr. Pap~ felt the discussion of using urban renewal moneys for the police services building was premature as it was yet unknown whether the facility would be built within the perimeter of the district. Regarding the library, Mr. Pap~ advocated for looking into how the City could merge library operations into the normal operating budget. He noted the library was a high priority. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to extend the discussion by four min- utes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly reiterated the importance of surveying the public. Mr. Taylor said surveys of the public would be conducted. Mr. Kelly, responding to comments from Mr. Meisner, opined it was important to acquire land for future park spaces ahead of development, as land prices would only increase. Mr. Carlson explained, in response to a question from Ms. Bettman, that almost any general obligation (GO) bond exceeded policy limits. Ms. Bettman noted that plans for the police building included a parking structure and the parking facility could qualify as an urban renewal project. Regarding the successful school levy, Ms. Bettman opined that it had been carefully configured to maximize community support. She felt strongly that the City should demonstrate it was not spending money efficiently in order to garner such support. Ms. Taylor remarked that fall of 2004 was too soon to pass a bond for the police services building. Mayor Torrey adjourned the work session of the City Council at 12:38 p.m. Mayor Torrey reconvened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 12:39 p.m. A. WORK SESSION (revisited): Proposed Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District Plan Report and Amendments City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Weinman provided a brief overview. He stated that previously the City Council and the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency had adopted motions to initiate the process to update the Riverfront Renewal District Plan. He emphasized that the most important piece of this was the need to extend the life of the district before it expired in 2005. He noted that, through the process, new draft language had been reviewed, projects to be included in the plan had been identified, and an extension of the boundary of the district had been approved. He highlighted the attachments in the agenda item summary (ALS). He said the amendments to the plan were key to the implementation of the vision of the greater downtown and the Downtown Plan Update. He conveyed staff's recommendation for approval. Mayor Torrey acknowledged that the motion, made at the beginning of the meeting, was still on the floor. Mr. Kelly referred to page 7 of the agenda packet and asked if the boundary expansion had been included in the financial projections. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge affirmed that it had not been included. Mr. Kelly asked staff to provide a sense of the financial magnitude of the extended boundary. Noting that the City had spent $6.3 million on the future courthouse site, Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the City would not recoup its expenditure from the sale. Mike Sullivan, Division Manager for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department, replied that the numbers were a conservative projection on the sale of the remainder of the property. He stated that the actual settlement with the Government Services Administration (GSA) was higher than the number that was included in the original Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Mr. Kelly said he hoped the City would "come out even" when all of the property was sold. Mr. Meisner voiced his agreement with Mr. Kelly that the land values would reflect the whole expanded district. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Sullivan said the restaurant space was for sale. He added, in response to a further question, that the Autocraft property would remain whole and was priced at $550,000. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Weinman stated that the Citizen Involvement Committee had provided input to this project prior to being disbanded. Ms. Taylor asked how urban renewal contributed to Growth Management Policy 16, supporting local environmentally sensitive business. Mr. Weinman replied that there would hopefully be more development in that area and some of the businesses in the research park were focused on such endeavors. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Charles Kupper, consultant, said the council could shut an urban renewal district down unless there was an existing bond issue. Ms. Taylor registered her opposition to urban renewal districts on principle. She hoped every effort would be made to involve the public before the project was moved forward. She averred there would be more taxes collected and the tax revenues would be allowed to be spent without sufficient project review. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon expressed her support for the motion. She reminded those present that the motion would take the district to the next level at which it would be reviewed and commented upon by the other taxing districts, the Planning Commission, and the public. She stressed that nothing would be done ;;behind closed doors." She commended staff for being responsive to the suggestions of the City Council. Ms. Solomon reiterated that urban renewal addressed the desire of the City Council to have compact growth within the City. She called the district a great start. Mr. Pap~ echoed the comments of Ms. Solomon. Ms. Bettman commented that she was neither for nor opposed to the urban renewal district. She asserted that the district would result in more taxes and less services provided by the City, due to less money going into the General Fund. She felt the expansion of the district had far-reaching implications. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kupper said the plan as it currently stood did not have a maximum indebtedness encoded within it. He noted he had discussed this with the City Attorney just prior to the meeting. He said that it was still an open legal question because the plan was adopted prior to the enactment of this requirement. Ms. Nathanson affirmed her support for the motion. She commented that the district would, for a certain amount of time, use urban renewal funds for improvements that would benefit the citizens. She asserted that to make the plan ~good enough" it needed to be tight enough to ensure that the City was within the regulations of the statutes but flexible enough to take advantage of any opportunities that would arise over time. She felt the plan would fulfill this goal, adding she would not choose to amend the plan. Mr. Kelly opined that the growth management policies were needed in law. He said while he supported urban renewal, he felt it very important to involve the public as much as possible as urban renewal was controversial and the public needed to understand the conflicts. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to include a sentence stating, as follows: "Such amendments will include specific agency approval of projects greater than $250,000 other than loans." Mr. Meisner remarked that he would support the motion to amend, but noted he would have supported it without the amendment as well. He expressed a preference for more specificity and some prioritization of projects. He noted there would not be enough money in the district to do large projects. Ms. Solomon asked the City Manager to speak to the amendment. Mr. Taylor responded that the Urban Renewal Agency adopted the annual budget and opportunities for projects, should they arise, would be brought before the board for a vote separate from the budget. Mayor Torrey commented that the amendment would not make a clear difference to the motion. Mr. Kelly felt the amendment would be valuable as it would bring the language before the public. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend section 1200 (c) to include a re- quirement for a public hearing for a change in planned projects or a change in the boundary. Mr. Kelly said he would not support the motion as he felt public involvement would be adequate without such a hearing. He questioned the need for a hearing to attain input on a change of $100,000 or less. Ms. Bettman responded that she would entertain a friendly amendment to that effect. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment putting a limit of $100,000 on the mandate for a public hearing in the event of a plan change, such that a cost change or bound- ary change of $100,000 or less would not be subject to public scrutiny. Ms. Bett- man, seconded by Ms. Taylor, accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Taylor called it a matter of being "nimble" enough to address opportunity in a timely way and yet be respectful to the plan and the public process. He said this would cause a level of review at a lower dollar threshold than other urban renewal districts required. He felt some deference needed to be given to the City's professional staff. He asserted the amendment did not make much difference, but recommended that councilors stay with the language set forth by staff. Mr. Pap~ suggested a limitation on the percent of expansion be written into the plan. Mr. Kupper responded that a limit was already part of the Oregon Revised Statute 457 and it would be redundant to put it in the draft plan, but staff would do so should the council wish them to. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Weinman said there would be approximately eight acres left for future expansion after the amendment. Ms. Taylor commented she preferred deference to the public over deference to the staff. She felt anything that increased the public involvement was a positive development. Ms. Solomon termed the amendment micro-management on the part of the council. She reiterated that the public had multiple opportunities to provide comment and was not being excluded. Ms. Bettman disagreed, stating the issue was "about excluding the public." She thought that, once passed, future councils could choose to alter the district boundaries without any public input whatsoever. She felt it maintained the council's integrity in the face of the public. The motion to amend the proposed amendments failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Tay- lor, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the time for the item to 1:30 p.m. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Nathanson voting in opposition. The Mayor voted against the motion and the motion failed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the time by three minutes. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papd, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Nathanson voting in opposi- tion. The Mayor voted for the motion and the motion passed. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that the council's request for a public involvement process that was analogous to the process the City of Portland had employed to be developed had not been brought forward for consideration. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add a sentence requiring inclusion of some kind of Public Advisory Committee. Ms. Nathanson commented that the public process the council was reading about was associated with establishing a new district. Mr. Weinman affirmed this, adding that the City of Portland was very different and that the Urban Renewal Agency there was separate from the City Council. The motion on the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Projects Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan that include projects noted in At- tachment A. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to amend the motion to reflect the amend- ments made to the previous motion. Mr. Papd pointed out that the amendments were only being passed on to the public for review at this point. Ms. Nathanson asked if the creation of an advisory committee would incur costs. Mr. Weinman stated that staffing an advisory committee creates the cost, but the amount is unknown at this time. Mr. Meisner requested that the amendments be put into legislative format. He also requested a memoran- dum with information on the former advisory committee for the Riverfront District. Mr. Weinman noted that the City Council had disbanded the committee. Ms. Bettman wondered if committees could be combined and if a police facility could be included. Mr. Weinman said that if the building project was in the district, some urban renewal funding could legally be applied to it. Ms. Bettman conveyed her disapproval of the inclusion of a street widening project on the project list, asserting that such a project could be funded through systems development charges (SDCs). MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Taylor supported the amendment. She suggested that representatives from the school district be included on the committee. Mr. Kelly responded that he would not accept that as a friendly amendment as it was too specific. The amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly asked for input from staff on the fidelity between the urban renewal district and the downtown plan. Mr. Taylor responded that there would be a public hearing on these items in January. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that mixing the urban renewal district, the downtown plan, and the downtown vision would be inappropriate as they had different funding mechanisms. She asserted the items should be called out separately for public review. Mayor Torrey stated that this was not germane to the motion. He called for the vote. The motion was approved, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Weinman assured the council that the different items would be highly distinguishable on the agenda. Mr. Kelly predicted there would be a great deal of public input. He opined that it would be good strategy to hold the hearings on two different nights. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) A : lccO 31119m l. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 9 Work Session