Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/26/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 26, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman (via speaker- phone for item C), George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. In the absence of Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy, Ms. Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Pryor reported he attended the most recent meeting of the Lane Council of Governments Board of Directors and heard a presentation on how rural communities could be more effective. He also attended the West Eugene Forum meeting, during which participants worked on a problem/purpose statement. Mr. Pryor reported that earlier that day, he attended the Human Services Commission meeting and learned that given the uncertainty of the renewal of the federal Rural Schools Safety Act, Lane County was preparing two budgets, one of which was a “doomsday” budget that would close entire departments. He said the situation was very serious and was not confined to Lane County. Ms. Solomon asked Acting City Manager Angel Jones to ensure the council had a work session regarding City’s experience with the implementation of the Rental Housing Code. Ms. Taylor indicated she would be absent from the next two meetings as she would be in Washington, DC. She spoke to the development proposal the council would consider in her absence, and questioned if City Manager Dennis Taylor had reviewed all the options regarding the downtown properties. Ms. Taylor urged that the council accept the Beam proposal and use downtown urban renewal funds to buy the Centre Court building. She found the Beam proposal better than the others under consideration because it would renovate an important corner of downtown. Additionally, it would not threaten existing, viable businesses in downtown. She thought the City should do all it could to nurture and assist downtown businesses and incrementally improve those parts of downtown that were not working. Ms. Taylor believed the City would need guarantees from those making the Beam proposal and should protect the offices holding Farmer’s Market and Saturday Market. Mr. Poling shared Ms. Solomon’s interest in having a work session on the Rental Housing Code. He recalled that the council agreed to revisit the fee at some point and requested a review after the first year of implementation. Staff requested two years, so information regarding a full year’s experience with of revenues was available, and that would be after July 1. Mr. Poling wanted to look at the fees collected, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 1 Work Session where they were spent and what happened to the moneys not spent on the program. He wanted to reduce the fee if additional revenues beyond program expenses were being collected. Mr. Zelenka reported that he attended PeaceHealth’s University District plans unveiling earlier that day, and found the plans to reformat the hospital’s Hilyard campus impressive. He said the project should be an exciting redevelopment for the area. The redevelopment would face Agate Street, some of the existing buildings would be demolished and replaced, and a new entryway created. Mr. Zelenka reported that resident Lisa Warnes made a presentation on the Amazon Headwaters at the last City Club meeting. Mr. Clark commended PeaceHealth for attempting to be inclusive in planning for its facilities and providing something that would be of service to the community for a long time. Mr. Clark noted his attendance at the dedication of the Eugene Japanese American Art Memorial, which he found very moving. He also attended the last meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council and was proud of the work Police Chief Bob Lehner was doing and the leadership he showed in that venue. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that the budget picture for Lane County was dire. Ms. Ortiz commended the work done by the neighborhood leaders and staff at the recent Neighborhood Summit. She said she attended the Domestic Violence Council in conjunction with her work on a Police Commission subcommittee and shared information about the commission with agency staff. Ms. Ortiz commended the Asian Celebration and noted her attendance at a Lunar New Year event. Ms. Ortiz said she visited the Hynix plant with Mayor Kitty Piercy and was welcomed along with kids from Looking Glass, who were there to learn about job opportunities. Ms. Ortiz said she and Mayor Piercy attended the recent Town Hall sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith. She said those in attendance had a good conversation. Ms. Ortiz said as an employee of PeaceHealth, it was good to see how many services would still be provided at the Hilyard campus. She was happy to see plans for a wellness center. B. WORK SESSION: Exceptions for Tailgating Around Autzen Stadium The council was joined by Captain Pete Kerns of the Eugene Police Department and Jerry Lidz of the City Attorney’s Office. Police Chief Bob Lehner was also present for the item. Captain Kerns provided an overview of the issue and the options before the council. 1. No Action - Take no action, which would continue the current level of enforcement for violations of the Eugene Code. 2. Expanded Area - Direct staff to develop a proposed amendment to the Eugene Code to allow consumption in an expanded area neighboring Autzen Stadium. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 2 Work Session 3. Permit System - Direct the City Manager to draft an ordinance establishing requirements for private property owners or managers that must be met in order to permit drinking at pay-for-use lots. This option would be limited to pay-for-use lots in a geographically defined area on game days for four hours before and two hours after each home collegiate football game. The City Council could also choose to direct the City Manager to develop these requirements following consultation with the affected property owners, the University of Oregon, and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). 4. OLCC Licensing - Amend the Eugene Code to prohibit property owners and managers from permitting and allowing drinking on unlicensed premises for which they are responsible. 5. Repeal Autzen Stadium Parking Lot Exceptions - Repeal Eugene Code Section 4.190 (4), which provides the exemption for the State-owned parking lots immediately adjacent to Autzen Stadium. Mr. Poling noted the long tradition of tailgating at Lane County and said he wanted people to be treated equally and fairly throughout the community. If the University of Oregon (UO) was exempted, he wanted to do the same for others who managed their own parking lots. He said many of the parking lots were run by nonprofit organizations that relied on the funding that renting the lots provided. The reduction of parking at Autzen Stadium forced people to go someplace else. He supported Option 3 but suggested that if it was not adopted, the council consider Option 5. Ms. Solomon did not think Option 5 was viable. She preferred to expand the exemption area. Referring to the nearby Chase Village apartments, Ms. Solomon asked if those residents violated the law when they invited their friends over to have a beer before the game. Captain Kerns clarified that the ordinance would apply to private property that was open to the public for a fee. Mr. Clark did not want to see unequal enforcement but he pointed out the department had responded to its perception of increased issues in the area. He thought the public saw the change in enforcement as a policy change. He supported Option 2 and expansion of the area upon which the 1984 rule applied. Mr. Pryor asked if Option 3 would apply to the University of Oregon (UO). Captain Kerns indicated the council would make that decision. Mr. Pryor asked how the permit would affect behavior “on the ground.” Kerns said the department’s concern was for people’s safety, minor use, and illegal sales. Tailgating at the UO represented the largest unregulated drinking event in Eugene, and the ordinance could bring some responsibility to bear on property owners; it could make the area a safer place. Mr. Pryor did not want to remove all controls from drinking in the area as it was his sense that the alcohol- related incidents were getting more frequent. He thought if that was the case it was in the City’s interest to figure out how to place an additional layer of responsibility on people. He asked if Option 3 was considered by staff as a way to impose additional responsibility or to restrict drinking. Chief Lehner said the idea behind the permitting system was to recognize that property owners were currently subletting parts of their property but taking a hands-off attitude toward what occurred. The permitting system was intended to encourage property owners to place a requirement on sub-lessees that they impose some requirements on the behavior of their tenants, such as not knowingly permitting minor use or alcohol sales. That would give the property owner the ability to turn down that business the next year if violations were committed. The property owner would not want to risk losing the revenue and the lessee would not want to lose the space, giving them an incentive to work together. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor did not think it was staff’s intent to provide an unfair advantage to the UO. Chief Lehner said at this time, staff did not know how much of the ordinance could be legally applied to the UO and what the UO might volunteer to do by way of compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Lidz noted that generally, the City enforced general criminal laws on UO property and did not require the UO go through the permitting process. Ms. Ortiz supported either Option 2 or 5. She thought people needed to be accountable and noted she had no idea what happened there until she attended a game, and “then she was appalled.” It seemed to her like it was a big party, and that was okay. She wanted the City’s laws applied equally, and wanted to see a permit approach as opposed to an expanded area approach. Mr. Zelenka thought there was a problem related to disorderly conducts on the part of a minority of males from 30 to 50 who did not appear to think the rules applied at Saturday football games. He was concerned about unequal enforcement between the UO and adjacent property owners. He did not favor Option 5 and thought the expanded area was “just punting.” He found the right balance in Option 3 as it placed responsibility back on the property owners. He wanted to include the UO in any approach selected and wanted the UO to police its back yard in the same manner as everyone else. Mr. Poling noted that Option 3 also included the expanded area. Mr. Poling pointed out that the council action only directed the manager to proceed to a public hearing, which provided time for additional input. He added that he did was not a proponent of repealing the UO’s exemption; he wanted to be fair. Mr. Poling commended EPD staff for the work it did controlling the situation at the UO in light of how many people attended football games. In fairness to those who tailgated at UO games, Mr. Poling pointed out that the council was discussing a very few number of the people who participated in tailgating each week. Mr. Poling noted his concerns about the fees and permitting necessary for Option 3 and indicated he wanted to hear more. Mr. Clark said the council frequently discussed cultural events during meetings, but he was unaware of any other cultural event in Eugene that drew more than 60,000 people. He said that if the City chose to proceed with changing that, it should proceed with caution. He continued to support Option 2, noting the reduction on parking available at the UO that was not envisioned in the 1984 ordinance. Option 2 merely took the City back to that time. He feared that the City would chip away at nonprofit organizations’ fund raising mechanism by imposing fees. Ms. Taylor thought fees would be complicated and difficult to enforce but she wanted to do more thinking about the ordinance. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the additional complication created by Option 3 and said he would want to know if the UO would participate; if not, the option was moot and he would be inclined to support Option 2. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked what requirements a private property owner would be signing on to, and what would be considered a violation. She also asked if the fees that would be collected would generate enough revenue to hire an office to monitor the lots on game day. Chief Lehner said that the options were not fully fleshed out and staff had hoped to get the options narrowed to one or two viable options that could be researched in more detail, including the requirements imposed. He suggested the requirements could be as simple as a permit that spelled out the basic restrictions on sales, use by minors, and control of parties. He believed the ordinance would give leverage to the property owner rather than the City. He said staff could come back with some research on Option 3; he characterized Option 2 as a fall-back, saying the two options were essentially the same except for the permit, and the City would still have to figure out how to get to the issue of increasing property owners’ share of the responsibility associated with such events. Ms. Solomon looked forward to seeing more detail about the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zelenka said since the ordinance was originally enacted, several changes had been made to the area such as the construction of the practice field and the Moshofsky Center, reducing the amount of land available for parking and tailgating, which pushed the use out to the surrounding neighborhood. He thought that the ordinance needed to be updated. He hoped the UO would volunteer to comply with the ordinance and consider incorporating it in its code of conduct. He wanted to see a continuum of options within Option 3 that at the low range mandated that property owners must secure permits so that they knew the rules and passed them on to the renters and at the high range mandated the property owners to pay the City for the costs of enforcement. He believed that those who cause the problem should pay for it. Mr. Pryor said if the City went to some type of permitting system he did not want it be an onerous, expensive permitting system; rather, he hoped to create a system that placed a modicum of responsibility on property owners and UO and which tracked what was occurring. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to draft an ordi- nance establishing requirements for private property owners or managers that must be met in order to permit drinking at pay-for-use lots. Mr. Clark suggested that the council was concerned with the public safety issues associated with how people behave when they drink too much, and there were existing laws for that. It made him uncomfortable when the City established a new bureaucratic system as he thought it would be self-perpetuating and its purpose could change over time with entirely different outcomes. He continued to support Option 2. Mr. Poling said he was leaning toward support of Option 3 until he heard Mr. Zelenka’s comments about fees for enforcement. He thought that would defeat the purpose of what the council was trying to accom- plish. He suggested that the council consider proceeding with Option 3 and direct staff to immediately contact the UO to determine if it would voluntarily obtain a permit if it could not be required to get a permit. If it was not willing to do so, the council could drop Option 3 and fall back to Option 2. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment with the proviso that the fallback would not be automatic. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Sergeant Kerns clarified that the UO paid for the costs of police security inside the stadium and for traffic control. Staff did not currently monitor the properties in question, and generally officers designated for traffic control responded to those calls. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Clark voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 5 Work Session C. ACTION: HUD REVENUE BONDS Acting City Manager Angel Jones spoke to the need for addressing the item at this time, saying the intent of the City was to use the resources as a tool for several projects. Staff brought several items forward to the council indicating that intent, including council approval of the 108 application, the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations approval of the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative grant application, and the Request for Qualifications on the Broadway Project. Staff wanted to be strategic and proactive in securing valuable tools to achieve the common goal of a vibrant downtown. She recommended the council authorize the entire funding to move the downtown revitalization forward. Acting City Manager Jones said the issue was time-sensitive due to the number of projects with related time lines, including the options for the West Broadway project, which cost money to renew. Mayor Piercy and Ms. Bettman joined the meeting via speakerphone. Ms. Taylor was opposed to renewing the options for properties that currently house existing businesses that were thriving. She thought that constituted a threat to those businesses. She believed that urban renewal gave management too much freedom to act without council agreement. Ms. Bettman objected to having a public hearing before the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Advisory Committee rather than the council, although she acknowledged the final decision rested with the council. She thought it important for the council to hold the hearing because it would hear from the community regarding the value of the projects to be funded by the money. She said that the money in question was generally used to benefit low-income residents. She had requested a list of projects that benefited from the money in the past and there were economic development loans to Plaza Latina, accessibility projects, WomenSpace, Looking Glass, and Shelter Care. The money filled a gap where the City did not normally have money. Any project funded with the money should meet community needs. Ms. Bettman did not think people would refer the resolution to a public vote because there would be no projects to react to. Adopting the resolution circumvented the community’s ability to refer projects to the ballot. Mayor Piercy asked what was different about the process and if the City still had the same focus on trying to use the money to benefit low-income residents. Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services said that for the City to access the brownfield grant, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required that it use the Section 108 borrowing through the agency and that it pledge as a revenue source the CDGB revenues as an “ultimate backstop.” The City would not use those CDBG revenues to pay the debt but rather would use project revenues and urban renewal revenues with the goal of avoiding the use of the CDBG revenues to pay the debt. If the City could find no other way to pay back the debt, HUD could hold back future CDBG revenues but that was not the City or HUD’s intention. Mr. Pryor did not think the approach being proposed was an attempt to circumvent the public process. He did not have a problem with the first amendment Ms. Bettman suggested and e-mailed to councilors prior to the meeting, which was to hold a public hearing. He said the City was trying to create a revenue mechanism MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 6 Work Session that it could take advantage of swiftly. He did not envision that anything would occur the council would not be aware of or would not authorize. Mr. Zelenka did not think anything nefarious was occurring but he acknowledged the money was public money and the council should not take away the public’s ability to refer projects for a vote. He thought the council could institute a public hearing once the project level had been reached. He supported the first amendment Ms. Bettman suggested. Ms. Bettman was willing to postpone consideration on her second suggested amendment to the motion, related to the City’s financial policies. Mr. Clark agreed the council wanted to protect people’s right to refer a specific project. He asked if failure to approve the motion came with opportunity costs. Mr. Braud said the City was dealing with purchase options with a 12-month life, and some were half-way through that lifetime. Mr. Clark asked if expiration of the options could cost the City more in the future or loss of those opportunities altogether. Mr. Braud agreed there was a risk of spending more money. Ms. Bettman preferred to wait on the resolution until the City had a project. She did not think there was support for that, however, and was willing to compromise if the council held the public hearing rather than the CDBG Advisory Committee. Ms. Bettman said the project was enormously costly on an upfront basis. She realized the CDBG money was pledged and the intent was as stated by Ms. Cutsogeorge, but she perceived competition for urban renewal funds that might result in the council deciding to use the CDBG funding after all, making it unavailable for the types of projects she previously mentioned. Mr. Zelenka thought the City would likely have to renegotiate some of the agreements and was glad to hear that they had automatic renewals at a modest fee. Ms. Taylor did not consider $30,000 modest. She was disturbed by the hint of urgency and the statement council would be involved when the council would be going on break soon and councilors would not be around. She thought that was why the manager did it. She reiterated that the options constituted a threat to the businesses in those buildings now and hoped they were not renewed. She thought the council should have been consulted about the options. Ms. Solomon asked staff to comment on Ms. Bettman’s proposed amendment. Ms. Jones said staff had no concerns about the amendment. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4938. Ms. Bettman moved to amend Section 4 of the ordinance as follows: “Before any revenue bonds authorized by this ordinance are issued to finance a project, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the project or projects to be funded with the revenue bonds and au- thorize the issuance by a subsequent resolution.” Mr. Pryor and Ms. Taylor accepted Ms. Bettman’s amendment as a friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark asked if staff recommended a time frame for the council public hearing after a project was identified. Ms. Jones said no. Ms. Bettman did not think a time line was needed as she believed staff could expedite something if it wished. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Jones to speak to that. Ms. Jones indicated her expectation that the manager and mayor would discuss that when they planned the council agendas. Ms. Bettman did not necessarily support all the ideas being contemplated, but she thought the amendment vastly improved the resolution. She regretted that the City was taking away a right from the community in the form of the referral by moving forward with the resolution without a project attached to it. She thought the City was denying the public that opportunity, but she acknowledged the lack of support for that concept on the part of the council majority. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 8 Work Session