Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/27/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall June 27, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Par Farr, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Betty Taylor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Reconsideration of Vote - Instant Runoff Voting Charter Amendment Mr. Kelly announced that he had a housekeeping issue to address, information about which was distributed to the City Council. On Monday, June 25,2001, a resolution regarding the instant runoff voting charter amendment was passed by the City Council. Mr. Kelly noted that he believed there was an inadvertent one- word error in the measure's text. The City Attorney advised Mr. Kelly that a reconsideration of the vote would be the cleanest method for correcting or amending the resolution. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reconsider the vote by which the City Council adopted on June 25,2001, the resolution to place the instant runoff voting charter amendment on the September ballot. The motion to reconsider carried unanimously, 7:0, Mr. Papd not having arrived at the meeting. Mayor Torrey declared the motion to consider the resolution to place the instant runoff voting charter amendment on the September ballot was back on the table. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the resolution, to insert the word "first" after the word "should." The amended last sentence of Section 20 would then read, "The City Council shall determine when preference voting should first be used." Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting. Mr. Meisner noted that at a meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations held June 26, discussion from the City's lobbyists noted that legislation to authorize instant runoff vote was unlikely to pass this legislative session. The motion to amend the resolution carried unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 1 Work Session To the motion to adopt the resolution, the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. B. HYNIX City Manager Jim Johnson reported that on Monday, June 25, the City Council voted 7:1 to deny a tax exemption extension proposal from Hynix. Since that meeting, there have been additional discussions and the Board of County Commissioners unanimously denied a similar request, although there was further discussion that the matter may be reconsidered by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Johnson said that there was a potential compromise which would keep the City whole and provide additional dollars to the school districts, which may require a special meeting. The Board of County Commissioners has requested that the City Council take action first, which may necessitate a special meeting of the City Council tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. He noted the requirement for 24-hour public notice. Mayor Torrey asked if finve councilors would be able to attend a special meeting of the City Council if it was necessary. Mr. Pap6 said he could not attend. Ms. Taylor said that she objected to scheduling a meeting without having all the City Councilors available. Mayor Torrey noted that the there was a deadline to have a decision by June 30 and the County commission must take action to concur with the City. Mr. Pap~ asked if a motion to reconsider the vote would move the process forward. Mr. Johnson noted that if there was agreement to hold a special meeting, the motion to reconsider was unnecessary. Mr. Klein added that the issue would not be to reconsider the motion before the City Council on June 25, but a new proposal would be brought forward for consideration. Those who said they could participate included Mr. Farr, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Bettman. Ms. Taylor said she was uncertain if she could attend. Ms. Nathanson was away from the table and did not indicate her availability. After 4:30, Mr. Pap~ said that he could be available via telephone. Mayor Torrey reported that there would be a meeting at 3 p.m. today with representatives from Hynix which would determine the necessity for a special meeting. C. Work Session: PeaceHealth Negotiations - Financial Options Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson reviewed preliminary financial information that was provided for council consideration, including two large wall-mounted charts. He noted that the material was put together since last Monday, which had not allowed staff to complete the analysis of estimates of yield for alternative non- property tax revenue sources, requiring preliminary information to be shared. He noted that PeaceHealth had asked that the City contribute $25 million to $35 million, including own-source revenue. Four reasonably related mechanisms have been highlighted, including: 1) the vacation of some City owned right-of-way within the six-block designated area, 2) potential waiver of system development charges (SDCs), which would require an ordinance change by the City Council, 3) the use of City revenues to fund infrastructure improvements for the site, and 4) the dedication of some parking fee revenues, generated by the new parking structures which would be available for capital payments on revenue bonds. It was estimated that these four sources could generate approximately $7.6 million (current value), which would require new revenue sources for the remaining balance. Mr. Carlson noted that Attachment A provided information on different levels of general obligation (GO) bond debt. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Johnson reported that the City also identified three non-own-source revenues for consideration, including general obligation bonds, which would be issued for the construction of parking. The City would end up with an asset, which the City would own. Of the $25 million package, $17.6 million would be general obligation bonds which would require voter approval in September. The other two revenue sources identified included 1) business registration/business license fee, which would generate an income stream that would have to be bonded over a 10- to 20-year period, and 3) an income tax surcharge, which has the capability of generating a larger revenue in a shorter period of time. The analysis of the income tax surcharge for a two-year period was included in materials distributed. Mr. Johnson said that if the City Council wanted to provide a financial package to PeaceHealth, the staff recommendation would be to fund $25 million, of which $7.6 million would be a reasonable but high-end estimate of what might be provided from own-source revenues and the remainder would be financed through general obligation bonds. Mr. Johnson said that the business registration fee and income tax surcharge were revenue sources which the City Council might consider for non-property tax, general fund revenue, which was also a City Council goal and priority. Mr. Johnson noted that Sue Cutsogeorge of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) was available to answer questions about the revenue projections and invited questions from council members. Ms. Taylor said that she was glad to see that several other sources were identified, which she said could be used to reduce the amount of property tax collected. She said that it was inappropriate for the City Manager to talk about the City's position, when no official position had been taken. She said that the City Council should take a position on purchasing property and potential construction before financing was discussed further. She added that she did not support destroying the neighborhood around PeaceHealth. Mr. Rayor said that he wanted the public to know that he and other City Councilors have only had approximately ten days' notice on this issue. He said that it was important to deliberate about the location of the hospital, including the public good, the impact to the fabric of the City of having the hospital move versus not-moving. He said that the development option that he favored was expansion one block at a time, but that six blocks at once was too much. Mr. Rayor said that building in downtown Eugene should not be any harder or different than building in the downtown area of other metropolitan cities. He said it was important to keep in mind continuing public input and that all corporations should be treated equitably. Mr. Kelly reminded City Councilors that at Monday evening's meeting, land use issues were targeted to be discussed at this work session and asked that time be allocated for land use issues. He said that the financial information was a separate issue which should be discussed and asked that it be considered as an intellectual exercise to debate how a financial package might be structured. Mr. Kelly said that he respected staf?s concern about precluding specific options for the future, but said that he did not believe it was necessarily true. Mr. Kelly suggested that although a GO bond was familiar, it would be yet another property tax which would fall on homeowners. Mr. Kelly asked for further discussion of an income tax surcharge, for a two-year period. He said that while it would be painful for a couple of years, it was more progressive and thought it would have a better chance for success at the voter polls. Mr. Fart said that he had spent the last six years on the City Council advocating for affordable housing. He did not want to go through the intellectual exercise proposed by Mr. Kelly. He said that the estimates for development at the Crescent site were only 40 residents per acre. The removal of 350-360 residences from the housing stock, by taking the six blocks as proposed, would take nine acres from the inventory. The MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 3 Work Session replacement housing would not be comparable to that which currently exists within the downtown core. He said that the proposal to take the housing stock out of the market does not make sense. Mr. Fart said that he was not interested in having Sacred Heart expand in its current location and that it was not necessary to talk further about funding elements. Regarding the finance element, Ms. Nathanson commented that it would be up to the proponents of the project to make a case for public funding. She said that she did not feel that the public shared the sense of urgency or commitment at this time and that the measure for funding should be referred to the public. When contemplating other revenue sources, Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the City would consider using its political capital on a project which does not have public support. Ms. Nathanson asked if the development of park land, as noted on the top of page 2 of the handout, had been discussed or was determined to be necessary in that neighborhood. She asked how the park fit into the overall parks and open space plan and whether the park be open to public use or be internal to a hospital campus. Mr. Johnson said that the discussion had focused on a public participation that would require the park be a public park. The City was not in the business of providing parks for private enterprises. He said that the park was included because of the anticipated high number of employees and users of the new hospital, which would necessitate reevaluating the need for a public park in the area. Ms. Nathanson noted that the City owns a park within one block of that area and suggested the City either needed to use the existing park or sell it. Mr. Johnson said that it might be a good spot to move some of the houses displaced by expansion. Mr. Meisner said that he felt it was difficult to isolate the financing issue effectively. He agreed that any proposal this large should go to a public vote, but recollected that the City Council did not submit a proposal for the exemption from taxation for Hyundai to a public vote. He said that the Crescent Drive location was not good, but neither was the six-block expansion at the Hilyard site. He did not support the development at Chad, but also did not support "sprawl" within the core. He said that the designs that had been presented did not provide for dense development. Mr. Meisner hoped there might be zoning that would protect lands in the future and get the community involved. He expressed concern about a six- block, low-rise development west of the current facilities. Mr. Meisner said that GO bonds have a general familiarity to the public, which was both an advantage and a disadvantage. He said that he had some interest in the business registration fee and requested additional information. A two-year income tax surcharge would not be painless, but would make a great deal of sense. He added that he did not want to refer a measure for public vote until there was a commitment that it was for a very positive public purpose. Mr. Meisner said that he would not oppose placement on the ballot, but he was not enthusiastic at this time. Mr. Pap~ said that all things considered keeping the hospital somewhere near the core was desirable. However, he said, it may not be prudent to expand at the current location. He added that discussions about helping a private institution were difficult for him. Mr. Pap~ said that PeaceHealth was ready to move forward and would proceed without the City if it was not responsive to the timeline. With regard to financing, Mr. Pap~ said the best option was to refer a GO bond in September. He noted that an excise tax was soundly defeated last year and that a business registration tax would meet the same fate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman commented that the idea of looking at financing outside the context of the entire proposal was difficult. She said that the discussion of financing may imply to the public that there was agreement among the council members for the proposal, which she did not believe was the case. She stated that the GO bond proposal in September may be rushed in terms of making a case to the public and to mount a successful campaign. She said that she would consider the business registration tax, but that the income tax surcharge, as a limited financing mechanism, may be more easily defined for the public. Ms. Bettman said that there was a presumption that September was required for the GO bond measure, and asked why November was not considered. In response to Ms. Bettman, Mr. Carlson said that PeaceHealth had indicated it must have a firm commitment by September, which required the ballot measure to be on the September ballot. This timeline necessitated that the council take action by July 9; the ballot measure would then be submitted to the County by July 19, which was also the last date to remove it from the ballot. Mayor Torrey said that whatever mechanism the City chooses to use, it must go to the voters for approval. When he reviewed the options, he had asked himself what the relationship of each was with the proposal. He asked why businesses would be asked to pay for hospital services that would benefit the entire community. He was not sure that putting a measure on the ballot was a wise choice. The practical reality of an election would be a tough sell. He said he would rather negotiate with PeaceHealth to a positive solution. He concurred with Mr. Papa's assertion that it was beneficial to keep PeaceHealth in the downtown area. Mayor Torrey spoke about the various constituencies who would vote both for and against this proposal. He said that he would not be betting on a "yes" vote. Mr. Rayor said that if a motion comes to put a measure on the ballot, he would vote against it. He said he would rather have a discussion about having a major employer move from the downtown core to the fringe. He said that this was the kind of issue which should have been one to two years in the making, to allow time for the public to understand. He said that he would really like to keep PeaceHealth downtown. He said that the issue of livability was important and that he did not want to see Eugene look like Seattle. Mr. Fart said that he has lived in Eugene for 30 years and acknowledged that there will continue to be issues of growth. He said he was interested in keeping the hospital in the downtown core, but he was also interested in maintaining the 350 residences contained in the six-block downtown core included in this proposal. He said that the six blocks west of the current hospital should not be part of the negotiations. Mr. Fart, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to cease discussions/negotiations with PeaceHealth regarding the six blocks west of the hospital site. Mr. Rayor said that he appreciated the motion, but was undecided on how to vote. He characterized the current proposal as asinine. He said that this proposal would require tearing down craftsman houses for surface parking, a prospect that was not favored by the council. He said a different kind of development, with a higher floor area ratio (FAR) would be desirable. He would support a proposal that would include a phased-in approach and be supportive of adjacent property owners. He said that adoption of this motion would preclude that continuing discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mayor Torrey announced that he intended to cease discussions on this motion at 1:10 p.m. to allow discussion of land use issues, as agreed by the council on Monday night. Mr. Meisner said that he too was not certain how he would vote on this motion. He did not think the six block option was an option to consider. Perhaps two blocks might be considered, but he would seek additional information on that aspect. He said that if the referendum was on this plan, he would vote against it. He said that a proposal for expansion similar to the hospital's development in the west University area was not acceptable. He said that great efficiencies can be made in building higher. He said that at most, the facility would be a 8-10 story building, not a 30-story building, but added that he felt that the City could do better. Mr. Kelly said that in the land use discussion, the Willamette area block would have approximately 100 residences. To the motion, Mr. Kelly said that he had a concern from a negotiating standpoint. As a negotiating tool, to remove all items from the table will make it very difficult for negotiations to continue. He said that the clear agreement of the council was that the proposal of the six blocks "would not fly." However, before negotiations are concluded, this motion would cause PeaceHealth to walk and end negotiations. He urged that the motion be defeated, not because the six-block proposal was acceptable, but because ceasing negotiations would not be productive. Ms. Bettman asked if the motion was intended to cease negotiations on the six blocks or to cease all negotiations, and if it gave the manager the option of negotiating four blocks and the Willamette site, or two blocks and the Willamette site, or some other configuration. Mr. Farr said that the intent of the motion was to cease negotiations on the six blocks as a unit. Ms. Bettman commented that during the negotiations, information had changed and it was desirable to look for a more urban campus. She noted that the site will include structured parking, as well as square footage for both hospital use and for medical office use. Mr. Fart said that if there were portions of the six blocks that make sense for the hospital to acquire, then that would be acceptable, although he preferred that not occur. He said he was reluctant to allow any further destruction of that neighborhood. He said that if there was interest in keeping the hospital in the downtown core, then a portion of the six blocks appears to be part of the negotiations. Ms. Nathanson said that there had been discussion of no further destruction of the neighborhood, but contended that she had urged upgrading and rehabilitating the neighborhood for some time. In response to Mr. Rayor's comments, Ms. Nathanson said that the City was reacting, not planning. She said that the City should be in a planning mode, not a reactive mode. She said she was not willing to put this proposal, with its accompanying price tag, before the voters. She said an alternative may be possible. Ms. Nathanson said that she would like to see a list or chad to demonstrate the net difference between the proposals. (Included in discussion would be transportation issues, commuting and bus, the pros and cons of the residential and professional office displacement, and finally, the character of the university neighborhood.) She said that she needed help with discerning these issues. Ms. Taylor said that she wished the motion said the entire six blocks was non-negotiable. She added that if there was an election, it should be in November, not September. She said that the only reason to have a September election was to provide more certainty for the residents in the six-block neighborhood. She said it was wrong to destroy any part of the neighborhood. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 6 Work Session likened the area to nodal development, with mixed uses and different kinds of housing, close to transit, and walkable. She said that the rent in this area was more reasonable than other areas and that it was close enough to not require vehicles for transportation. Ms. Taylor said she would like to see PeaceHealth stay in the downtown area. She said that there were other alternatives that could be looked at. Mr. Pap8 said that Ms. Nathanson was right that the City was reacting, not planning. However, he said that the hospital had plans to expand and that it will proceed without the City. Mr. Pap8 said that while he would like to vote in support of the motion, he could not support stopping negotiations. He said that he supported keeping the hospital in the core. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap8 voting in opposition. Mr. Kelly spoke to the financing package. He believed that the major component should be put to the voters for a vote. Mr. Kelly said he would propose to direct staff to put together a finance package to be voted upon by the City Council on July 9. He said that a business registration tax was not a viable option, as it was too small and would have to go on for at least 50 years. He said that the November vote would also necessitate the need for a double majority. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare necessary motions and measures for a two-year income tax surcharge to be considered on July 9. Mr. Farr opposed the motion. He said that there have been efforts to finance an ongoing revenue stream for affordable housing and the income tax was considered for this purpose. He said that an income tax surcharge should be dedicated to something very important and to something that would generate results which more closely pertain to the council's goals. He said that if this measure goes to the ballot, he would not vote for it. Mr. Meisner also opposed the motion. He pointed out that measures 5, 47, and 50 have shifted the tax burden to the individual and away from business. He said that business registration fees may not raise all of the money that would be needed, but would be a good start. The income tax surcharge would be an additional tax on individuals and families and he could not support it. He said that if the intent was to add to the corporate income tax, the motion needs to state so. In addition, Mr. Meisner noted that the motion would preclude the use of an income tax surcharge in a quasi-bonding form rather than for the support of operations and services. He said that he felt this would confuse the citizens and that he was not in support of this approach. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She said that if the motion were expanded to include corporate income tax, she hoped Mr. Meisner could support it. This provided an opportunity for the City to do something about the relocation of PeaceHealth. Regarding affordable housing, the negotiations suggested relocating housing to the park area, which has not been used for years, and to facilitate Iow-income housing. Ms. Bettman said that she would support either the income tax surcharge or the business registration tax. She said that the limitation to two years for the income tax surcharge did not preclude it from consideration for other City needs in the future. Ms. Taylor said that she would not support any ballot measure until she knew what the plan was, and that it would have to be a plan which did not destroy the neighborhood. She said that if it included expansion at the Eugene Clinic site, she would consider the motion and that she would probably favor a business registration tax. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pap8 asked about the result of the Public Safety Coordinating Council ballot measure two years ago. Mr. Johnson said it was defeated by approximately 70 percent to 30 percent. Mr. Pap8 did not support the motion, saying it appeared to be an exercise in futility. Mayor Torrey said that if there was a tie, he would vote to send something to the voters. However, he said he would not vote in support of the measure at the ballot box. He added that he did not feel the City should be providing tax money for PeaceHealth to build the hospital. He said that PeaceHealth asserts that it costs more to build in the core, which it might. However, Mayor Torrey noted that this was not a City of Eugene hospital and that PeaceHealth has the ability to limit its own budget to build what it can afford to build. He said that he understood the need for predictability, but that funding the building was not a City of Eugene responsibility. Mr. Kelly said that if Ms. Taylor voted yes on the motion, it will allow staff to develop options for a vote on July 9, but did not indicate her support putting something on the ballot at this time. To Mr. Meisner's concern regarding the corporate income tax, Mr. Kelly asked if there was any option to extend the tax to personal and corporate income. Mr. Johnson said that the estimate and material was based on personal income tax and that if the City Council wanted information on corporate income tax, staff would need direction to move forward. Mr. Kelly amended his motion to include personal and corporate income tax in an amount sufficient to fit the package parameters. Ms. Bettman seconded the amendment, considering it a friendly amendment. Ms. Nathanson opposed the motion. She said that there was such uncertainty around this issue that the measure would be doomed. She added that she did not want the measure to tarnish to the future potential of some other kind of creative financing program or tax submitted to the voters, which might have broad appeal to fund public safety, after-school programs, refinancing library services, parks or other programs. She said she was reluctant to not send anything to the voters, but that this was a political call and that it was not right for the public yet. Ms. Bettman said that this was not a $25 million proposal, but a $15 - $17 million proposal to provide for infrastructure. She said that there was a precedent to encourage a certain kind of development for managed growth. She said that sometimes that required an incentive. This was not an effort to help Sacred Heart build the hospital, but was an effort to raise money to provide the infrastructure to facilitate its location in the city center. Mr. Meisner said that while the motion was more inclusive, he would continue to oppose it. However, if there was a subsequent motion that directed the City Manager to prepare possible resolutions for each or all three, he would support that motion. He said he would not support referring any of the revenue mechanisms to the ballot until it was to support a specific plan that would be beneficial to the voters. Ms. Taylor concurred that until there was a specific plan, she too would not support putting any measure on the ballot. Mr. Johnson said that staff could prepare two alternatives, but would be unable to prepare three prior to the July 9 meeting. The motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman voting yes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly spoke to land use issues, reporting on a suggestion from Jim Hale to consider a site including the old Eugene Clinic location, roughly Willamette to Lincoln streets, 11th to one-half block south of 13th avenues. He said that the code language in code to allow any hospital uses in any R3 and R4 zones, subject to conditional use permits, was much broader than intended. Mr. Kelly said that the language was included because of previous PeaceHealth suggestions about residential drug treatment at the Crescent site or sports medicine clinic, which could have some in-patient activity. He said that the City Council did not know that this concept would be broadened into a full-service hospital. Mr. Kelly distributed copies of materials prepared by Mr. Hale, which proposed an option to displace approximately 100 housing units, would be cheaper to acquire, would displace fewer trees, and would involve fewer historic structures. In terms of Council action, Mr. Kelly suggested that there needed to be direction to the City Manager to begin the process to change both the refinement plan and the Land Use Code. Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor seconded, moved to direct the City Manager to being all necessary steps to begin a timely change to the Willakenzie Refinement Plan and Land Use Code, to remove hospitals as a permitted use in R3 and R4 zones. Ms. Bettman asked that the motion be amended to exclude the current hospital site. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor concurred and accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said that it was important to have both "carrots and sticks" and that this proposal was a way to put the City in a planning position. When the code was discussed in November, the proposal from PeaceHealth was to keep the hospital at its current site. She said that she supported this motion because it also involved a long public process, which will give the neighbors on the north end of town the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. Mr. Meisner asked for further clarification: Was the amendment meant to address the current hospital site or the hospital-owned land in the area? Mr. Kelly said that the amendment was intended to mean the current hospital buildings on the Hilyard campus. He said that part of the campus was zoned R3 and that he did not want to make it non-conforming. As to the Willakenzie Plan, there were two places which address hospital uses in R3 and R4 zones. The motion was intended to change the land use code, the Willakenzie Plan, and to preserve the present two blocks. Mr. Meisner said that he would likely vote in support of the motion, although he was not happy with the proposal for another six-block empire. He said the motion allowed staff to prepare for a subsequent meeting and work session. At the request of Mr. Farr, Mr. Kelly repeated the motion, which now read: Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to initiate necessary steps, which would involve public notice, public hearing, work session and Planning Commission involvement, to change the Willakenzie Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code Update to remove hospitals as permitted use from R3 and R4 zoning but to exempt the current PeaceHealth hospital site. Mr. Farr asked how much time would be required for this proposition. Mr. Johnson reported that the amendments needed to the Willakenzie Refinement Plan were fairly easy. He said that it was also not difficult to remove things from the Zoning Code. It would take approximately 60 days to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 9 Work Session accomplish the intent of the motion, which would require significant staff time, but that there would be additional time for the public process, which also includes additional staff time. Mr. Fart said that he would vote against the motion because he felt the City Council already had too much "on its plate" already and that he was reluctant to add to the workload. Ms. Taylor asked what would be exempt in the motion. Mr. Kelly said the motion was meant to exempt the land between 15th and 11th avenues, and Alder and Hilyard streets. Ms. Taylor said that she would support the motion. Mr. Rayor asked for clarification of the zoning of the current six blocks. Mr. Johnson said that it was mixed zoning, including some R3/R4, as well as commercial. Mr. Rayor said that he generally supported the concept of the motion, but did not want to preclude PeaceHealth from developing at all. He said that if the City Council want to just affect the north Eugene site, it makes more sense to amend the housing requirement on the north Eugene site than to preclude PeaceHealth expanding half a block one direction or the other, that was already designated as R3 or R4. Mr. Rayor said that this would prohibit PeaceHealth from expanding its current campus. Mr. Johnson said that it was the intent of the motion. Mr. Pap~ said that he was generally favorable to the motion, but asked if this could push PeaceHealth to accelerate its plans and make it more entrenched in its position to build at the Crescent site. Mr. Johnson said that was possible, and that it was also possible for PeaceHealth to submit a conditional use permit application before any action was taken by City Council to change the Willakenzie Refinement Plan or the Land Use Code, which would grandfather the request under the old (existing) code. Mr. Pap~ said that he felt the motion was pushing PeaceHealth into a box and that he would vote against the motion. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the Planning and Development Department staff would not be able to accomplish these changes, given the other direction already given it by the City Council for other projects. She said that changing rules was the wrong way to get where the City should go. She said that she did not believe the housing rules were written correctly. She said that because of Mr. PapS's comments and that this was an incomplete suggestion, she would vote against the motion. She said that although she supported the intent of the proposal, unless the proposal was comprehensive, she would not support this specific motion. Mr. Kelly clarified that the workload issue included the concerns of Ms. Nathanson that the City was reacting and was working under a timeline. He said that if there were no sticks, in addition to carrots, PeaceHealth would go its own way. Mr. Kelly said that he would also propose to amend the motion, to address the concerns expressed by Mr. Rayor and Ms. Nathanson regarding where would the hospital then expand. Mr. Kelly said it was his intent to create an exclusive hospital zone and that the placement of this zone would provide the means for PeaceHealth to expand. Mr. Kelly amended the motion, subject to approval of the seconder, to also direct the City Manager to begin development of specification of an exclusive hospital zone. Ms. Taylor said that she would accept the amendment as friendly. Mr. Kelly said that in response to Ms. Taylor's concern about where such an exclusive hospital zone might be placed, he said it was his hope that in on-going negotiations, PeaceHealth would recognize this as a tool that can be used to expand and that it would work together with the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 10 Work Session as to where the exclusive hospital zone should be placed. He added that this would also come back to City Council for approval. Ms. Bettman said that there has to be some willingness to act, on the part of the City Council to achieve the objective to keep development downtown and intensify uses. She said that the increased workload includes waiting periods and notification periods, and would not take 60 days of solid work. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was anything about this proposal that was putting the City at risk. Mr. Klein said that if this was adopted and the City moves forward, PeaceHealth could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and the Court of Appeals. This allows LUBA or the Court of Appeals to remand or reverse the decision, which would include compensation for legal costs. However, if PeaceHealth applies for a conditional use permit before the City Council gets through the process, then it would be grandfathered in and any changes would not apply to the Crescent site. If PeaceHealth was able to apply within the next 60 to 90 days, the City Council could adopt the changes, but it would not impact PeaceHealth's ability to build at Crescent. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the meeting by ten minutes. Mr. Pap~ noted that he would not be able to stay if the meeting were extended. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. PapS, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Nathanson voting in opposition. Mr. Meisner called the question, seconded by Ms. Taylor. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Farr voting in opposition. Mr. Johnson noted that there was still no direction on financing mechanisms. Mr. Pap8 left the meeting. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the City Council the resolutions and whatever else was needed to pursue a general obligation bond or an income tax surcharge for two years, including personal and corporate income tax. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification: Did the motion include preparation of the measures appropriate to place these on the ballot? Ms. Bettman said that was correct. The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Fart requested to change his vote. The motion was then declared passed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 11 Work Session James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kris Aanderud) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 12 Work Session