Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/14/01 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Ha11--777 Pearl Street May 14, 2001 8p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Fart, Scott Meisner. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1.CEREMONIAL MATTERS Police Week/Peace Police Officers Memorial Day Tree City USA Award NeighborWoods Volunteer Recognition Mayor Torrey proclaimed the week of May 13 through 19 to be Police Week, and called upon citizens to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies honoring police officers past and present. He proclaimed Wednesday, May 16, 2001, as Peace Officers Memorial Day, in honor of those who lost their lives or became disabled in the line of duty. On behalf of the Eugene Police Department, Chief Jim Hill thanked the mayor and council for the acknowledgment. Mayor Torrey recognized Urban Forester Mark Synder. Mr. Synder announced that he was present to oversee the presentation of the Tree City USA award to the City of Eugene. He introduced Bob Johnson of the Oregon Department of Forestry, the agency that administered the program in Oregon, who was in attendance to present the award. Mr. Johnson congratulated the mayor and council for Eugene's receipt of the Tree City USA Award and said Eugene was one of 36 Oregon communities acknowledged as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation. The award recognized the City's commitment to tree planting, tree care, and tree appreciation. In addition, Mr. Johnson reported, Eugene qualified for the growth award, one of only eight Oregon communities to qualify. Mr. Johnson presented Mayor Torrey with the Growth Award and Tree City USA flag. At the request of Mayor Torrey, the Cub Scouts from Troop 177 displayed the new Tree City USA flag to audience members and the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 1 Regular Meeting Mr. Synder introduced Chris Gerard of the NeighborWoods Program. Mr. Gerard noted increases in the program participants and said he was impressed with the grassroots commitment of neighbors to the program. He invited the council to view the trees planted by NeighborWoods volunteers at several locations throughout Eugene. Mr. Synder recognized the Pioneer Youth Corps, Westmoreland Teen Center, and Greg Geisey for their tree planting efforts in Ward 1; Jim Gent, Jonathan Brandt, and Bruce Creps for their tree planting efforts in Ward 2; Cub Scout Troop 177, St. Mary's Youth Group, and Eugene Community Softball League for their tree planting efforts in Ward 3; Cherri and Michael Bynum and the Cai Young 7th grade class for their tree planting efforts in Ward 5; St. Paul's Catholic Church for its tree planting efforts in Ward 4; Michael Waldorf and the Northwest Youth Corps for their tree planting efforts in Ward 6; Adam Wendt, Mary Leontonich, Milli White, and Jay Fox for their tree planting efforts in Ward 7; and Connie Robertson and Pam Sheridan for their tree planting efforts in Ward 8. The volunteers received a round of applause from those present. 2.PUBLIC FORUM Wayne Maynard, 1574 Coburg Road, urged the council to defer action on the ordinance it would consider later in the evening, in view of the communication it received from the attorney for Laurita Ruth. He noted that the City's legal counsel had advised the council it was legal to take action; he advised the council to seek other counsel, referring to the citations in the letter from Ms. Ruth's attorney. Mr. Maynard said if the City proceeded, Ms. Ruth would have no choice but to file a costly legal action. He thought that might not be necessary if action was delayed. He said Ms. Ruth was counting on the council to protect her rights, which may be circumvented by the action at hand. Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, expressed disappointment with the council's vote to support the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system as he had many reservations about the project. He averred that important decisions were being made on the basis of deadlines for funding and the potential federal funding could be lost. Mr. Cassidy did not think it made sense for the federal government to threaten the project's funding if it supported the project and thought it a model for the future. He said that the district now proposed to use Reserve Funds to pay for the new buses rather than federal funds, and it was possible more funding would be needed, such as from fare increases. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, thought Ms. Bettman's observation at the earlier work session regarding the southernmost portion of the Beverly property and the need for a greater buffer was well taken. He said that the eastern portion of the property was quite significant. He agreed with Ms. Taylor's remarks that the headwaters area was a citywide asset. He acknowledged there may be other high priority sites but said this site was under pressure from possible development. He believed development on the property would impact Amazon Creek and affect the work done to improve stream quality downstream. Jonathan Brandt, 1821 Washington Street, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Tree Foundation, said he was disappointed with the decision to go forward with the BRT project. The foundation supported the project but thought more work was needed. He agreed with Mr. Cassidy's remarks on the pending deadlines. Mr. Brandt said that the project would have a long-lasting impact on the pilot corridor. The foundation could support some trees being taken out to improve transportation. Mr. Brandt criticized the amount of public input that had gone into BRT. He called MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 2 Regular Meeting for more public involvement in the future. Mr. Brandt asked the City Council to move forward with the tree preservation ordinance, saying "trees were under assault in so many different ways." He also asked the council to continue to funding the NeighborWoods Program. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, spoke in support of the City's stormwater acquisition activities. He thanked the council for protecting two of the three stream corridors on the Beverly property. He thought the property had critical value because the Amazon Creek ran through the wetlands and it was an important community resource. He described the location of the Beverly property and said he would demonstrate with evidence the property was hydrologically critical to the Amazon system. The property was a critical lynchpin in the parks system and was appropriate for a trail. He said that the organized neighborhood group could work creatively with the City to find matching funds to leverage funds and protect the property as a community resource. Mr. Matthews noted that there was a rumor about a road being built through the property. Councilor Rayor referred to the council's decision made about the Bus Rapid Transit earlier in the evening. He said he had considered the issue at great length. He said that he had pushed to increase the viability and future build out for BRT through TransPlan, and had concluded that the community had to start somewhere. He wanted BRT to work. He said that fear of taking the first step should not be reason for not starting. Councilor Rayor said that the community could build critical mass behind the system. He did not think that LTD had the money to make BRT "everything to everybody" in the first system phase. Councilor Rayor said that his vote was a "leap of faith" that LTD would make the federal funding go as far as possible. Councilor Kelly agreed with Councilor Rayor that the council's vote in support of BRT was to some extent a leap of faith. The amendments the council made to the resolution regarding BRT had done a great deal to allay his concerns. He would not be fully comfortable with the project until future phases were built. However, he agreed with Councilor Rayor that the system must have a start. He encouraged the citizens offering testimony on the subject to continue to stay involved and be the council's "eyes and ears" for the project. Councilor Kelly referred to the Amazon headwaters and said staff would continue to bring various funding ideas to the council for an enlarged purchase, but there were also other community resources all over the city being threatened by development. The council must balance those threats with the opportunities that arise. Councilor Kelly encouraged the Southeast Neighbors to partner with former Councilor Barbara Keller on the larger acquisition of the headwaters area. Councilor Pap~ agreed with the comments of Councilor Rayor and Councilor Kelly regarding BRT. Councilor Bettman appreciated the audience's comments on BRT. She said that the more the council was willing to accept an incomplete plan, the more it could be sure it would receive incomplete plans and projects. She did not think that was a responsible way to run a city. Councilor Nathanson said that the decision on BRT might feel rushed to some, but the project had been contemplated for years in the planning process, which included extensive public involvement through the Planning Commission and City Council. At some point the planning must stop and the project is either done or not. Tonight a majority of the council agreed to join LTD in saying it was time to start the project and stop "gnashing our teeth." She said that there were many issues that must be balanced. Councilor Nathanson agreed with a remark previously made by Councilor MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 3 Regular Meeting Rayor that for a community of Eugene's size, BRT represented very forward thinking. She hoped the first phase would prove that the community was taking the correct approach. Councilor Taylor said the community should consider what it needed in terms of BRT and then find the needed money, rather than take federal funding simply because it was available. She said that the City could not put off saving the community's open space for the future. It took people who were thinking of people who were not born yet to save some of the City's parks now, and the community should do the same for future citizens. 3.DISCUSSION OF CHARTER REVIEW ISSUES City Manager Jim Johnson indicated he would ask the council to confirm its direction regarding Eugene Water & Electric Board at a future meeting. 4.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Council Minutes: April 4, 2001, Joint Elected Officials Meeting April 9, 2001, Work Session April 9, 2001, City Council Meeting April 11, 2001, Work Session April 18, 2001, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of April 18, April 26 and May 3, 2001 D. Approval of the Request for Proposal Time Line for Measure 20-37 "Partnerships for Youth" Fund E. Resolution 4671 Amending Eugene City Council Operating Agreements and Repealing Resolution Number 4663 F. Resolution 4672 Amending the PIC/LEO Agreement Concerning All Contracts with the State of Oregon G. Approval of Overseas Travel Request Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Rayor pulled items A and E. Regarding changes to the minutes, he referred to paragraph 6 on page 4 of the April 11 work session and said the word "bicyclists" in line 1 should be "bicycles." Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection to the proposed change to the minutes. Councilor Kelly had a minutes correction (Item A) and pulled items C and G. He referred to page 4 of the April 9, 2001, regular meeting minutes and asked that the first sentence in paragraph 9 be changed to read (italicized text added; struck text deleted): "Councilor Kelly addressed Mr. Hauser's statements about the current ward system, saying it was required by law to be equitable at the time it was adopted." Councilor Kelly noted that agenda item D was incorrectly referred to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 4 Regular Meeting as agenda item E in paragraphs 2 and 5 on page 6 of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 2001. Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection to the proposed changes to the minutes. Councilor Bettman had a minutes correction (Item A). She referred to page 4 of the April 9, 2001, work session minutes and asked that the second sentence in paragraph 4 be changed to read (italicized text added; struck text deleted): "She had a reservation about the recommendation for * ........... *-~'~'*o '-"'~ angled parking." Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection to the proposed change to the minutes. Roll call vote; the motion to approve items A, B, D, and F passed unanimously, 6:0. The council considered Item C. Councilor Kelly noted concerns about the City's position on House Bill (HB) 2523. The bill would raise the threshold for contracts subject to prevailing wage rates from $25,000 to $250,000. He objected to the position because while there may be cost savings to the City, there would be wages lost if the minimum threshold was raised, and the threshold was being raised by an order of magnitude rather than an inflation factor or step increase. He noted the Oregon AFL-CI©'s opposition to the bill. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend Item C by changing the City's position for HB 2523 to Priority 2, Oppose. Councilor Bettman supported the motion because the council's goals included one of supporting family-wage jobs. Responding to a question from Councilor Nathanson about when the threshold was initially set, City Manager Jim Johnson estimated approximately 15 years ago. Roll call vote; the motion to amend Item C passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Taylor referred to HB 3784, which prohibited a licensed ambulance service from allowing an employee impaired by fatigue or other factors from working in an ambulance, and asked the reason for the City's opposition. She referred to HB 3466, which defines growth-related action and required cities and counties to give notice of proposed growth-related actions and their effect, and asked the same question. Responding to the first question, City Manager Jim Johnson said that the City followed the rule now, and did not allow employees impaired by fatigue to work on an ambulance. He said that the City preferred the decision be made at the local level rather than by the State legislature. Regarding HB 3466, Councilor Rayor said that the bill was an unfunded mandate that imposed additional requirements on the City; he added that there was a series of similar bills regarding land use currently in the legislature that would have the practical effect of hamstringing land use planning. Planning Director Jan Childs concurred with Councilor Rayor's statement. Councilor Taylor preferred to be neutral on HB 3466. She thought it was simply a matter of keeping people informed, and said the City should not be opposing the legislation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor moved to change the City's position on HB 3466 to Neutral. The motion died for lack of a second. Regarding Item D, Mayor Torrey thanked the Parks and Open Space Committee and Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director Angel Jones for their efforts in passing Measure 20-37. He told Ms. Jones he was prepared to "pay up." Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item C passed 5:1:0, Councilor Pap~ being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Referring to Item E, Councilor Rayor objected to the inclusion of the new paragraph on page 2 of the operating agreements. His objection focused on the fact that people speaking to a lone issue were placed higher in the queue of those to be heard than those who may have signed up to speak first. He preferred a "first-come, first-served" approach. Councilor Rayor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to delete paragraph 4 on page 218 of the meeting packet. Councilor Taylor said that while she had tentatively supported the change, it was her strong preference that all persons wishing to address the council be allowed to speak. Councilor Kelly noted that he had polled the council by telephone regarding the addition; only Councilor Rayor objected. Councilor Pap~ had raised the issue of needing to let the public know about the change in the process, and he concurred with those points. Councilor Kelly suggested there were two kinds of fairness to consider, the "first-come, first-served" type of fairness, and the type of fairness of allowing those who had never spoken to the council before to speak to it on a single issue and not to be "blind sided" by the fact a large, well-organized group showed up to speak on one topic. Councilor Nathanson supported the addition of the paragraph. She suggested that the last sentence be modified to read "to speak before the public forum is closed" to make it clear that the public forum was scheduled for a finite time period. Councilor Taylor said that it could be a person who had never spoken before and wished to speak on a topic that was one of concern to others at the same meeting might be turned away. That person should also be allowed to speak. Councilor Pap~ said he was convinced to support the change by the fact most times the number of speakers wishing to speak in the Public Forum were limited in number. Roll call vote; 4:2; the motion failed, councilors Rayor and Taylor voting yes. Councilor Rayor moved to add to the paragraph the following: "Should there be more speakers than can be heard for three minutes during each public forum, or if the public forum is not extended, the staff will sort..." The motion to amend died for lack of a second. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor moved to amend the motion that if the council did not extend the time, the word restraint be applied to the council and that it not speak in response to the public forum. The motion to amend died for lack of a second. Councilor Taylor and Councilor Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Councilor Nathanson to add the phrase "to speak before the public forum is closed" to the end of the last sentence in the paragraph. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Regarding Item G, Councilor Kelly suggested that no action was needed if no councilor intended to go on the trip to Irkutsk. Mayor Torrey said that he heard rumors there were councilors interested in attending. No councilors present were available to attend. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, to table Item G. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance Amending Section 7 of Ordinance No. 20224 to Provide an Effective Date of August 1, 2001 And Ordinance Amending Section 4 of Ordinance No. 20225 to Provide an Effective Date of August 1, 2001 Mayor Torrey asked if the ordinance required the City staff to evaluate the removal of any tree on any property, and how much that would cost. Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said that the staff would verify, prior to issuance of a permit, that a tree could be cut. She clarified it was not a new practice, but it would require resources to track and monitor. In general, citizens currently called the City to ask if they could cut trees, and for information about regulations. Mayor Torrey asked how many additional staff would be added. Ms. Bishow said that staff estimated one FTE (Full- Time Equivalent). Planning Director Jan Childs said the Budget Committee would receive a memorandum from the Urban Forester on the topic for its Wednesday meeting. Councilor Pap~ asked if the implementation date for the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) would require a lot of overtime for preparation. Ms. Childs said that staff was in the process of getting prepared now. The only issue that came up since the last council work session was that a lot of Planning Division staff take vacation in August because the council and Planning Commission are in recess at that time. An August 1 effective date meant that those staff may have to rearrange those plans. She did not think it would involve much overtime to prepare for implementation. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Bill Kloos, PO Box 11906, Eugene, submitted written testimony. He said he represented the Lane County Homebuilders Association in its pending appeal of the Land Use Code Update to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He endorsed the comments to be made byAI Johnson. Mr. Kloos advised the council not to take the action it was contemplating because it was precluded by State law from amending an ordinance under appeal at LUBA. A citation from LUBA relevant to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 7 Regular Meeting his argument was included in his written testimony. Mr. Kloos said that barrier could be overcome if the record on the pending appeal had not yet been submitted to LUBA. That was the current situation. The State statutes afford the City, in that case, the right to withdraw the initial ordinance and adopt a new ordinance. Mr. Kloos said that the council had a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office advising it not to take action, and the homebuilders association supported that advice. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, 97440, encouraged the council to adopt the Land Use Code Update. He said that the code could be fixed later if needed. He called for further changes to the code. Citing Section 9.9630(1)(a)(2), Mr. Matthews said the section mentioned exceptions to the section that were consistent with the purposes of the section, but the purposes of the section do not appear in the code. He said if the refinement plans must be in the code to be effective, he was concerned that the purposes of the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study needed to be in the code for it to have meaning. Mr. Matthews referred to Section 9.8325, tentative planned unit development criteria for needed housing, and said that (13) incorporates a "morphed" version of text from the South Hills Study about specific planned unit development criteria for steep elevations; they were reworded to make them objective criteria. Referring to Section 9.8320, General Criteria, Mr. Matthews said the general versions of those do not appear. He thought that might be an oversight. Al Johnson, PO Box 71818, joined in the comments of Mr. Kloos and submitted written testimony. He spoke on behalf of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, a party to the appeal previously mentioned by Mr. Kloos, and urged the council not to move up the effective date of the Land Use Code Update. The council's previous decision to tie implementation to the fate of Ballot Measure 7 was a sound one and he encouraged the council to maintain it. It would reduce the City's financial exposure to Ballot Measure 7 claims. Mr. Johnson said that until the pending appeals related to Ballot Measure 7 were completed, there was no reason to implement the code. He noted warnings about the cost of Ballot Measure 7 that were posted on the League of Oregon Cities Measure 7 Web site. He also referred the council to a memorandum entitled Ballot Measure 7; Status and Prognosis, written in November 2000 by a former City Attorney for the City of Lake Oswego. Mr. Johnson said that another reason to delay the effective date was to use the time to show that the code would stay in effect when it was adopted. He cited the Whiteaker Plan as an example of his concerns. Mr. Johnson said the Chamber of Commerce had asked LUBA to review the code to ensure it was consistent with State goals. The chamber and others were concerned the code update created new limitations on development that had not been sufficiently studied to ensure that land allocated for different purposes would be available for development, as required by Land Conservation and Development Commission. He requested a copy of the council's final decision on behalf of the chamber. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Rayor asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to respond to the testimony. Mr. Klein said that was he was familiar with the materials cited by Mr. Johnson in testimony, and nothing Mr. Johnson said related to Ballot Measure 7 changed his advice to the council. He said there may be risk, but no one knew what the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court would do if they heard the appeal of Ballot Measure 7. He did not know if the State legislature would act on the measure during the current session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 8 Regular Meeting Regarding Mr. Kloos' submittal, Mr. Klein said he had not read Mr. Kloos' letter yet and he recommended the council give him an opportunity to read it before it took final action. As a general proposition, he added, Mr. Kloos' statements regarding the statutes were correct. He did not know, however, that the statutes applied to what the council was being asked to do. The council was only changing the effective date of the ordinance, not the substantiative provisions of the ordinance itself. Councilor Rayor determined from Mr. Klein that the Land Use Code Update had been appealed to Land Use Board of Appeals, even though it was not in effect. Under State statute, the appeal must be filed within 21 days of the date the council adopted the code. Councilor Pap8 asked if the council could reverse what it did between code adoption and a final decision on Ballot Measure 7. Mr. Klein said the council could make changes to the code, but people would have made applications based on the new code prior to the court decision on Ballot Measure 7. Under that scenario, if someone built an apartment building that contained fewer units under the new code than would have been allowed by the former code, the council's action would be too late for that individual to construct what he or she initially wanted. Mr. Klein said they would have been damaged and the City would have to pay compensation. He said that there were ways to provide more flexibility in the code and reduce the City's liability if Ballot Measure 7 takes effect. Councilor Pap8 asked about the position taken by 1,000 Friends of Oregon that the City could not grant case-by-case waivers. Mr. Klein said that the organization had not reached the point of identifying its specific arguments. The organization had appealed all ordinances that included a blanket waiver provision for Measure 7. He clarified he was discussing something different; most land use codes already have provisions related to variances. For example, the Land Use Code Update had an adjustment provision. He was talking about "tweaks" to those provisions that might give the City more flexibility than it did now. Mr. Klein had heard nothing from the 1,000 Friends of Oregon that indicated it would oppose such a provision as a violation of State law. Councilor Bettman noted the length of the adoption process. She said that there was a significant amount of testimony incorporated into the code from many different individuals and organizations, and she wanted to adopt the code as soon as possible. Her constituents informed her that developers were making applications for projects that would have a negative impact on their neighborhoods before the code could take effect. She had not heard anything to convince her the council should not move forward. Councilor Taylor asked about Mr. Matthews' concern about the South Hills Study. Ms. Bishow responded that the applicable plan policies were included at the end of the land use ordinance. She wanted to look into Mr. Matthews' testimony further. She anticipated that there could be other omissions or oversights, and hoped staff would have the funding to address needed changes to the code. Councilor Kelly was also interested in moving ahead with the code on a date certain to give the development community and staff more certainty about when the code took effect. He expressed the wish that the representative of the homebuilders had the courtesy to provide his remarks to the City Attorney in advance of offering his testimony, as had Al Johnson, attorney for the Chamber of Commerce. He was willing, however, to defer to the City Attorney's interest in further review of the issues involved, given that the council was scheduled to act on May 29 and could adopt the August 1 effective date at that time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly spoke to the representatives of the homebuilders association and Chamber of Commerce present at the meeting, saying that everyone has to live together in the community. He said that there were a lot of good things in the Land Use Code Update, as acknowledged by the homebuilders association, and he wished that the development community was willing to try the new code. He likened the update to TransPlan, saying the Eugene council had not received all it wanted in that plan but was willing to move forward and work with Springfield, Lane County, and Lane Transit District to make it work. He wished the two organizations would reconsider their appeals. Councilor Nathanson did not want to use the occasion to reopen discussion about what the council had just adopted, but she looked forward to seeing a lot of amendments as quickly as possible to fix errors and to improve the code. There were things in the code she was not happy with, like other councilors, and she believed changes would be needed to make the code work. She stated that she hoped the council did not find itself waiting until February or March 2002 to see the first amendments come to it. She hoped to see the first amendments right after the August recess. Councilor Rayor was disappointed by the lawsuits, recalling the comprehensive public process that had accompanied the Land Use Code Update. He thought the council had restrained itself from making changes at the end of the process that the development community would consider unilateral and outside the public process. He was looking forward to the City Attorney's opinion. Councilor Bettman suggested the council consider developing criteria for any amendments to the code it considered in the future. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Public Purpose for Which Property Was Condemned under Ordinance 19660. City Manager Johnson reminded the council it had held a public hearing on the item. Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department was present to answer questions. Responding to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding the correspondence received earlier that evening from the attorney representing Laurita Ruth, Mr. Klein said there were two possible significant dates: ten years from the date of the ordinance, and ten years from the date the City acquired the property. He said the research he had done indicated the significant date was ten years from the date of acquisition. He added he had not had the opportunity to investigate the citations quoted by the attorney representing Ms. Ruth. He noted that the attorney, Jon Junkin, was suggesting that the City could not change the public purpose; the ordinance presented to the council was based on a State statute specific to how the public purpose could be changed. Mr. Junkin did not address that statute in his letter. Mr. Klein said he was comfortable stating that the council had the authority to adopt the ordinance before it. He could not tell the council for sure today whether Mr. Junkin's letter would change his opinion about the significant date. He did not recommend the council delay its action pending further research. Councilor Rayor asked if the intended purpose for the property would still be a road. Mr. Klein said the primary purpose was for the road, but it was also intended for development and redevelopment consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan. The ordinance would confirm that the property was intended for use as the road, and would make it clear that a portion of the property not needed for the street could be used for redevelopment, such as a sale to AutoCraft. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 10 Regular Meeting Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman about what would be accomplished in the 30-day delay requested by Mr. Maynard, Mr. Klein believed it would merely delay adoption of the ordinance for 30 days. Councilor Bettman repeated her question to Mr. Maynard. Mr. Maynard responded that Ms. Ruth has offered to purchase the property. Mr. Junkin had counseled Ms. Ruth that the ten years expired January 17, 2000, because the council took action on an ordinance related to the purchase of the property on that date ten years earlier. Ms. Ruth believed she had the right to purchase the property, and wanted the 30 days' extension because she wanted to work out the details of the purchase. He said that Ms. Ruth was sincere in her wish to purchase the property. Also, he disagreed with Mr. Klein that the issues were as clear-cut as the City Attorney's Office believed. Mr. Maynard maintained that what the City was attempting to do was tantamount to a substitute condemnation. Councilor Papd clarified the details of the property settlement that took place ten years previous with City staff. He confirmed the City paid fair market value for the property. Councilor Nathanson summarized the situation, saying the intent of the acquisition was not just to build a roadway, but to add the property to the renewal district to realize a larger vision of development along the riverfront. City Manager Johnson confirmed Councilor Nathanson's statement. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Klein to confirm that, if the council passed the motion, the property owner would lose none of her legal rights, and if the City was challenged by the property owner, there would be the opportunity to secure compensation in the form of attorney's fees. Mr. Klein was unable to confirm those statements. Mayor Torrey asked about the source of the purchase price cited by the property owners' representatives. Mr. Klein said the State statutes gave the property owners the right to repurchase the property for the original purchase price plus seven percent annually since the City acquired the property. Councilor Rayor noted that in the absence of an emergency clause, the ordinance would not take effect for 30 days, giving Ms. Ruth the time she requested. City Manager Johnson concurred, but pointed out that the council had not expressed interest in selling the property to Ms. Ruth. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Klein clarified that the ten-year provision was not in the agreement itself, but in the ordinance the council passed authorizing the condemnation. He further clarified that the settlement agreement related to the purchase of property under threat of condemnation generally indicated what the property would be used for and within what period of time. The date was ten years from the date the City actually acquired the property. The ordinance states ten years from the date of ordinance adoption, but the property was acquired two years later than that. The State statute suggests the ten-year period began on the date the property was acquired; the settlement agreement was silent on that point. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said that the condemnation ordinance always included the intended purpose for the property, but the level of specificity depended on why the property was being acquired. Councilor Nathanson hoped that specific building and site design conditions would be developed for the parcel in question. She asked if that was underway. City Manager Johnson said that staff was not far enough along in the discussions about the federal courthouse and related development plans to say yes. Councilor Nathanson said that with building and site design conditions imposed, with a new federal courthouse, and with the redevelopment of remainder of site, the City was accomplishing the goals of the district. She stated for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 11 Regular Meeting record she was satisfied with the City's plans to redevelop the property in question and wanted to move forward. Councilor Taylor asked what harm could come from waiting 30 days. Mr. Sullivan responded that discussions about the federal courthouse and the AutoCraft property could move along fairly quickly when the City had certainty about its ability to move forward with redevelopment of the property in question. Councilor Pap6 asked if the settlement agreement superceded the condemnation ordinance. Mr. Klein said that was the staff position. If there was nothing specific in the settlement agreement, the fallback was the State statute, which created the ten-year stipulation. City Manager Johnson said the council would consider Council Bill 4763, an Ordinance Concerning the Public Purpose for Which Property Was Condemned under Ordinance 19660. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. City Manager Johnson said the council would consider Council Bill 4763 by number only. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting to the McNutt Room. Councilors Bettman and Pap~ left the meeting. E. Work Session: 2001- 2002 City Council Goals Work Plan Due to a lack of a quorum, this item was postponed. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 12 Regular Meeting