Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/22/07 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall January 22, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. th Ilona Koleszar , 871 West 11 Avenue, spoke on behalf of a group called Residents for Responsible Rapid th Transit (3RT). She said the group formed in response to the City’s decision to make the West 11 Avenue corridor its priority for the third stretch of the EmX transit line. She noted that group’s email address was 3RT@comcast.net. She averred that using the Franklin Boulevard corridor was an obvious choice as a transit connection between Eugene and Springfield with no real alternative. She stated that 3RT wanted to help identify alternatives to running a transit line through “a densely populated vibrant neighborhood” such as the one between the downtown area and Chambers Street that would still reach destination areas in west Eugene. She related that 3RT met with Lane Transit District (LTD), accompanied by a representative of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors Association (JWNA) and LTD indicated it had no plans for a third leg of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). They found LTD representatives to be receptive and willing to share information. She said the group learned that each added leg of the BRT system must strengthen the system and not just lengthen the route, which meant that each route had to be carefully planned. She also learned that LTD preferred to study more than one corridor for West Eugene. Pauline Hutson , 1025 Taylor Street, member of 3RT, recently attended a meeting of the LTD steering th committee on the possibility of a new EmX route through the West 11 Avenue corridor. She learned that the EmX sought to save six minutes from the trip, and this would be accomplished by stopping every third of a mile rather than every two blocks. She said this did not take into consideration people who use wheelchairs, which took various amounts of time to be loaded and secured. While riding the bus she experienced delays of two to four minutes due to this procedure. She also felt the time savings did not take into account the extra time it took to board small children, the elderly, and disabled people. She thought bicycles would also be problematic, given that they would be stored at the front of the bus. Additionally, th she said the argument being made for developing ridership along West 11 Avenue could also be applied to thththth River Road, Coburg Road, Highway 99, and 6 and 7 avenues. She thought the 6 and 7 avenues were obvious routes to develop as they were predominantly commercial corridors. She stated that these routes and others needed special consideration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting th Jozef Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, also wished to address the planned West 11 Avenue corridor study. He believed transparency was needed in this action. He related that a neighbor viewed a City Council th webcast in which the council decided to only pursue the West 11 Avenue corridor as its next route for the EmX transit system. He asserted that the neighborhood was not notified of this discussion and the sole meeting with LTD was initiated by the neighborhood. He averred that the 3RT group had still not been able to gain a clear picture of “what is truly going on” and he indicated that it received conflicting responses from City staff and from the LTD staff. This, he said, led to rampant speculation on the part of the neighbors. He said people wondered if the streets would be widened, trees cut down, bus routes eliminated, eminent domain imposed on some property, and so on. He stated that the charters and mandates of the City and of LTD dictated that neighborhood input would be sought and that state money would not come without a transparent process. James Seaberry , 1475 Green Acres Road, Space 162, read a letter of testimony from John Dotson into the record, copies of which were distributed to the Mayor and council. The letter asserted that the City of Eugene staff changed the way it reviewed annexation applications so that they were modified to include streets and rights-of-way. He alleged that each time the modification was applied to an application, staff was abridging the statutory definitions of affected territory in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 199.415(3). He noted that Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission member Christine Larson recom- mended that terms, definitions, and criteria be footnoted on notifications. He supported this request as he wanted to see the boundary commission include terms, definitions, and criteria applicable to the modified and affected territory, both those pertaining to the property, to the streets and rights-of-way. He asked that since a new modified affected territory was established by City staff, was it not the position of the boundary commission to set out the terms, definitions, and criteria of both. He referred to ORS 199.415(17) and asserted that it was not applicable because the streets and/or rights-of-way being requested for annexation were not simultaneously withdrawn as represented in the language of ORS 199.415(17). Rob Handy , 455-½ River Road, asked the council to clarify its policy and to stop street annexations in the River Road area at its Wednesday January 24, work session. He averred that the fundamental reason for doing it was that citizens had a right to give voice in matters of taxation. He observed that staff called street annexations reasonable and logical, with which he disagreed. He alleged that boundary commission meetings were long because River Road residents showed up in great numbers to testify against street annexation. He claimed River Road residents had “looks of horror and dismay on their faces” when staff talked about the reason and logic behind such annexations. He noted that an application to annex had been submitted by the “last working farm” on River Road and City staff recommended that Arbor and Rosewood streets be annexed as well. He asserted that this would create an “island annexation” for 462 county properties east of River Road and south of Beltline Highway. He predicted that this would change those residents’ fundamental rights. He agreed with the Santa Clara Community Organization advisory to the council, which recommended allowing everyone to work together to “do annexations.” He wanted to stop the current practice. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, commented that the BRT steering committee met at night in “another town.” He said it might be nice if people could come to the library to give testimony to the committee. Mr. Vishanoff asserted that the Walnut Node was becoming blighted and that; the University of Oregon had let the Williams Bakery site “start falling apart.” He predicted that the Franklin Boulevard area would still be a mess when the 2008 Olympic Trials occurred. He opined that the area had become less nodal. He asserted that the Planning Commission was “essentially helping solicit donations” for Phil Knight by planning “his temple” into the nodal plan. He called it a “corporate kind of tidal wave.” He averred that MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting neighborhoods around the University of Oregon were some of the most intelligent. He recommended reading a book called Who’s Afraid of Nike Town. He also recommended reading a book called Radical Evolution. He noted that the latter was about how nanotechnology would enhance human capabilities. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Councilor Poling stated that he served as the council’s representative on the EmX Steering Committee and had served in that capacity for five years. He also participated in a Coburg Road stakeholders group. He said as a result of the stakeholder involvement, the Coburg Road corridor project was shelved. He stated that the group could not come up with a design that met the neighborhood’s concerns, the council’s concerns, and LTD’s concerns. He underscored that there was public involvement in the process. He understood that at this point LTD did not have funding for a study of the corridor 3RT members discussed in their testimony. He noted that he had recommended that the potential corridor be referred to as the West th Eugene Corridor, given that it was not strictly affixed to West 11 Avenue. He added that the purpose of the EmX was not just to reduce trip time, it was also to increase ridership and reduce vehicle miles. Referencing bicycles and wheelchairs, Councilor Poling said the conflicts between the two were not like they were in the past. He believed the time for getting on the bus would be shorter. He reiterated that the stakeholder group was open and encouraged the 3RT group to remain in contact with LTD and to participate in the group. He pointed out that citizen input would ultimately help to design the next route. Councilor Clark thanked the members of the 3RT group for their testimony. With regard to Mr. Handy’s testimony, he recalled that then-Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson spoke at the last Santa Clara Community Organization meeting. He further related that County Commissioner Bill Fleenor stood up and declared that the people in the City of Eugene were good people who were trying to do their job. He stated that the real issue with annexation was that City staff was trying to do its job and follow the Metro Plan and the law, and the real issue citizens had was the Metro Plan. He related that Mr. Fleenor had suggested that the Metro Plan be reviewed, and that Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken made the same suggestion in his State of the City address. He encouraged people in the River Road Community Organization to provide input on whether they agreed that the Metro Plan should be reviewed. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 13, 2006, City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006, City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006, Work Session - December 12, 2006, Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4901 Calling for a Public Hearing to Consider Proposed With- drawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Rec- reation District and from the Santa Clara Water District D. Appointment to Eugene Toxics Board E. Appointment to Lane Workforce Partnership Board F. Appointment to Police Commission G. Adoption of Resolution 4902 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for th Residential Property Located at 631 East 14 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (FIND, LLC) H. Adoption of River Road Community Organization Charter Amendments MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Solomon pulled Item B. Councilor Zelenka pulled items D and F. Councilor Taylor pulled Item G. Councilor Bettman said she had electronically submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy deemed the minutes corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exceptions of Items B, D, F, and G, passed unanimously, 8:0. th Regarding Item B, the Tentative Working Agenda, Councilor Solomon asked why the update on the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street property had been postponed from the January 24 meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that staff was still working on the negotiations and would not have a recommendation for the council at that time. Councilor Solomon also saw that the items for the work session scheduled for January 31 were cancelled and asked if something else would be placed on that agenda. City Manager Taylor responded that a work session to follow-up on the City Council goal-setting session was planned. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item B, the Tentative Working Agenda, passed unani- mously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka wished to ensure that everyone had seen the new tally for Item D, the appointment to the Toxics Board. Mayor Piercy noted that a new motion to appoint would be required. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Jennifer Olson to the Toxics Board. Councilor Solomon did not recall such a vote happening in her earlier term. She asked who had determined that the council would change to preference voting. Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston, explained that there were three candidates and it seemed like this would be a good opportunity to try preference voting. She said this would save the councilors’ time as it would preclude an interview. She stated that one candidate did receive over 50 percent of the vote, so the preference voting did not actually occur. Councilor Solomon asked if there was a policy change to always use preference voting in the case of a tie. Ms. Walston replied that it was “just an idea” that was thought to potentially expedite the process. Roll call vote; the motion to appoint Ms. Olson to the Toxics Board passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Regarding Item F, Councilor Zelenka, asked if it would be possible to have just one body instead of having both a Citizen Review Board and a Police Commission. City Manager Taylor responded that the City Council had created the Police Commission. He noted that the issue had been raised regarding whether two bodies were necessary but he had not received any council direction at this point. Councilor Zelenka commented that having both seemed redundant to him. Councilor Ortiz averred that they were two different kinds of bodies that functioned as different mechanisms within the local government. Mayor Piercy suggested that staff could provide information regarding the functions of the two bodies. Councilor Zelenka understood the difference between the two. He said he thought one body could serve the two purposes. Councilor Bettman pointed out that Councilor Zelenka could request a work session on the issue. She asserted that even the Police Commission questioned its future objectives especially since the Chief was pursuing Lexipol policies that were “basically off-the-shelf policies from a national organization.” She said because the main function of the Police Commission was to review policy, Councilor Zelenka’s question was legitimate. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to appoint John Charles Hare to the Police Commission. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Item G, Councilor Taylor reiterated her objection to allowing anyone a tax exemption. She felt it allowed unfair competition. She asserted that the project that was seeking the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was close the University neighborhood and not in the downtown core neighborhood for which the MUPTE was adopted as an incentive. Councilor Bettman averred that when the City Council had adopted the MUPTE ordinance, it had been reassured that the council would have the opportunity to weigh in on each application. She acknowledged that “before [development] penciled out for the developer” there needed to be a critical mass of housing. She was willing to support the MUPTE for the downtown area until that critical mass was achieved. She asserted that the project was creating housing within walking distance of the University. She declared it “basically student housing.” She found it difficult to believe the project would not “pencil out” given the demand for student housing that she perceived to be there. She alleged that every development created demand for City and County services that they were exempted from paying for in the first 10 years. Mayor Piercy asked for an explanation as to why the City was offering the exemption to this property, given that it was not in the downtown area. PDD Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman stated that the exemption was designed to increase housing in the core area. He underscored that the City Council had identified a boundary area for the MUPTE zone and the development in question was located within the boundary. He noted that the council included the area because the housing in it was deteriorating and having it replaced with better housing was a positive development in the long run. He stressed that the developer had to prove that the development would not be built without the MUPTE and the developer had done so. He added that the council also required certain quality standards and these were being met as well. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark ascertained that the estimated life of the building would be approximately 60 years. He pointed out that the development would bring roughly $1 million in property tax to the City over its lifetime in addition to the existing tax burden on that property. He observed that it was the opinion of many that these types of exemptions took money away from jurisdictions, but he disagreed. He believed it added money to the City’s coffers over the long-term. He likened it to the many establishments that sell appliances with no interest and no payments for a period of time and do so with the understanding that without these enticements the transactions would be less likely to happen. Councilor Solomon underscored that the MUPTE was not a complete tax exemption as the developer was still required to pay taxes for the land. She reiterated that the 10-year exemption was only for the improvements made to the land. She noted that the developer had included in his application eight sustainable features. She pointed out that the council had sustainability as one of its goals for the coming year. She believed that this was the kind of work the council wished to promote and wanted others to emulate. She added that the West University Neighbors expressed support for the project. Councilor Poling echoed the comments of councilors Clark and Solomon. He said the council had the same conversation every time another MUPTE application was made. He reiterated that no money was being taken away as the taxes were still being paid on the property and the exemption was only for the improve- ments. He believed it to be a good project and he believed the MUPTE was a good tool for promoting such projects. Councilor Zelenka pointed out that the West University Neighbors had sent a letter conveying the group’s support for and approval of the project. He said there were many deteriorating housing in that neighborhood and he believed the project would benefit it. He commended the developer for the inclusion of the elements of sustainability, such as solar panels and carpeting made from recycled materials. Councilor Bettman did not dispute it was a good project. She asserted that there were families living in single-family houses that were not getting tax breaks and could not afford to renovate their houses. She alleged that all of the tax breaks statewide added up to $18 billion. She questioned whether the City could “afford to subsidize this development” or if it should let the market forces take hold. She called the assumption that the development would not be built without the exemption a “false argument” because no one could prove whether it would or would not be built. She asked if there was a way to reduce the timeline. Mr. Weinman responded that the State statute for the MUPTE dictated that the exemption should be for 10 years. Councilor Bettman declared that the MUPTE made “hypocrites out of us” every time elected officials complain that there was not enough money for public safety, road infrastructure, and schools. She opined that the project did not justify a tax exemption. Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Bettman. She also felt it was a good project, but there were people “all over town” whose houses needed upgrading. She did not think the council could “give everybody a tax exemption.” Mayor Piercy said if the council had designated this area for this kind of exemption to occur to meet a certain set of goals, then the council should look to changing the policy if it no longer wished to support the MUPTE. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman disagreed with the notion that the council was bound to approve every application because it had put the boundaries in place. Councilor Taylor said the council did not say that everything in that area had to have an exemption. She thought it created unfair competition because someone who was three blocks away would not be able to access the exemption though their theoretical development could be “just as good.” Councilor Clark said the City needed to offer this opportunity in order to gain the $1 million or more that the project would bring in after the exemption expired. He stated that it would serve the City over the long haul. He believed the MUPTE to be a wise tool, noting that the Governor had said when signing the extension of Senate Bill 39 that these exemptions were a necessary part of economic revitalization in the state. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Zelenka, Poling, Solomon, and Pryor voting in favor; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting