Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/17/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall March 17, 1999 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Betty Taylor. I. CALL TO ORDER The adjourned March 15, 1999, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 11:30 a.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. II. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER A. Supplemental Budget Request for the Airport Mr. Meisner said he had major concerns about the Airport's supplemental budget request, specifically the taxiway rehab project, which reflected a 100-percent increase. Mr. Kelly echoed the concern. B. Grant Coordinator Writer Mr. Meisner recalled that during the last budget cycle the council had approved creation of a new position in the City Manager's Office for a Grant Coordinator/Writer. He said the position in the last year has produced two grant applications, one for a noncity agency with federal funding and the other a "weed and seed" proposal. He expressed concern that the position seems to be much more oriented toward Intergovernmental Relations and legislative affairs support and asked for an update including a breakdown of time spent on the various tasks. C. North End Scoping Group Ms. Nathanson reported on the North End Scoping Group's first meeting, saying that the purpose of the meeting was to get acquainted, review the group's mission and charge, and to review information already available. She noted an excellent presentation from City staff on the history of Eugene. She indicated that members shared initial observations about things they liked and disliked about the area. D. Clean Cities Program Referring to an e-mail distributed by Ms. Nathanson on the Clean Cities Program, Mr. Kelly said he supported her request for staff research on the project. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 1 11:30 a.m. E. Snowpack Impacts Mr. Pap6 called attention to the unusually large snowpack in the mountains and wondered about the City's preparedness. F. Transportation Utility Fund Ms. Taylor asked for clarification of a report that the council had endorsed regarding the concept of a transportation utility fund (TUF). Mayor Torrey explained his comment at the Metropolitan Policy Committee meeting regarding the TUF. He recalled saying that when the Budget Committee discussed options in developing funding for transportation, one of the options was a TUF. The Budget Committee report was subsequently accepted by the City Council, which does not necessarily mean a TUF would be implemented. G. Human Rights Commission's Work Plan Goals Mr. Fart distributed the FY99 Human Rights Program Commission and Committees Work Plan Goals and said that at some point he wished for the council to review those compared to the council's goals. He added that he will also call for a review of the program budget and recommend an increase. Mr. Fart added that he was committed to raising awareness on the council of the commission's work. The council acknowledged Mr. Rayor's birthday by singing their best wishes. iii. ACTION: APPROVAL OF THE CHARGE AND SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON STREET IMPROVEMENT FUNDING Les Lyle, Public Works Engineering, provided the report, indicating this was a continuation from last week's council discussion and staff has incorporated the suggestions made during that discussion. He reviewed the meeting material and pointed out the changes. Mr. Kelly said he reviewed a tape of the previous council discussion and is in agreement with the changes suggested. He called attention to a discrepancy on page 185 between the original draft and that presented today, saying the latter adds "local street policy" as well as alley assessment to the committee's charge. He expressed concern because there are some places in the community where arterial collectors and local streets are intertwined. The council had no objection to delete the phrase "if needed." Ms. Taylor said she preferred periodic reports and wished to speed the process up to address current inequities. Mr. Lyle indicated that at the council's request, three projects, Ayres Road, Delta Highway, and Garden Way are "on hold" until these assessment policy issues are resolved. Addressing a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Lyle confirmed the composition of the committee as two representatives each from the City of Eugene and Lane County and at least one from the City of Springfield, and he assumed the council would not object if Springfield asked to have two as well. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 2 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the proposed scope of work and charge for the Subcommittee on Street Improvement Funding, as modified by Mr. Kelly's suggestion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. IV. WORK SESSION: RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK PROJECT AND URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Mayor Torrey asked members of the council to briefly state their positions on the issue and then allow a motion that has been requested by the University. Mr. Kelly said he was pessimistic about how the park would measure up against the City Council's goals. He believed it to be a land use issue and asked the council to spend time discussing the broader issue of urban renewal districts. He said he hoped for an up or down vote on Option 2 in the staff summary, saying he would support that option if it were modified to include a broader representation on the joint effort and if it stipulated that no capital dollars would be spent until the study had been reviewed by the council. Mr. Pap~ agreed that it was a land use issue but said the problem was "this was not our land." He suggested that the University be compensated for any land set aside for County or City parkland. Ms. Taylor said she could not agree to any plan that did not guarantee saving the land at least north of the tracks; that the park has harmed downtown; that the river front area is a real treasure, and ways should be found to preserve it. Mr. Rayor agreed that it was a land use issue but said that the problem was that the conditional use permit issued in 1988 was valid for 20 years and there was no provision for drawing it back for reevaluation. He pointed out that the permit allows parking for 2,500 vehicles and building designs unlikely to be appreciated near the river. Mr. Rayor said he was very concerned about the research park drawing businesses away from the five other industrial parks that "actually pay taxes to the City." Mr. Lee reminded the council that the issue was actually urban renewal funds, noting that the specific amount was small. He said the community needed to understand that urban renewal was just a tool. Mr. Lee expressed concern with jeopardizing the City's relationship with the University over a small line item. He noted that the land in question was State-owned and the only thing the City had control over was urban renewal funds--one of the small budget items that "gives life to the research park." Mr. Lee concluded his remarks by saying he believed in former University President Paul Olum's vision, given that the region was transitioning from a agricultural/manufacturing economy to an information-based economy and "we needed tools (such as the research park) in this community to help" in that transition and "it provided University of Oregon students a future and the emerging workforce an opportunity to gain the kind of experience necessary to compete in a world market, and an opportunity for closing the gap on the per capita income deficit." Mr. Fart said it was difficult to envision what the research park would look like when completed. He called the park invaluable in attracting clean, high-paying businesses and incubating new homegrown industry, adding that it was an integral part of the City's economic future with the right kind of support. Mr. Fart said the City has done a commendable job in reclaiming unsightly areas and the riverfront is no exception. He asked the council to leave open the prospect of developing north of the tracks. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 3 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner echoed Mr. Kelly's remarks and agreed that there was a significant land use question at issue but it also had to do with the City's role in economic development. He said Mr. Lee's point that this was a small part of the budget was well-taken, but the City has invested a tremendous amount in capital infrastructure over the years. He agreed with Mr. Rayor that economic times have changed and said that would be a factor in the council's deliberation; however, he added the taxing system had also changed and that would be crucial to him in making a decision. Mr. Meisner emphasized that this was a partnership and the views of all the partners and their interests were important and must be respected. He said his responsibility as a councilor was to make sure that he protected the interests of the citizens of the City of Eugene. Mr. Meisner said it was important for him to look at the broad issue of the renewal district, of which the park is but half. Ms. Nathanson wondered how much of the decision before the council was symbolic, suggesting a rephrasing of the questions: "How much money is needed to complete infrastructure in the park and how would that cost be distributed? If that amount to be used from urban renewal funds is something less than what is needed, is it possible to spend all of that urban renewal money on projects that this body is comfortable with given that the rest of the funding would have to come from somewhere else anyway?" She said that generally partnership and intergovernmental cooperation/agreements were viewed as a means to an end rather than an end unto itself--something that is appropriate, a tool to do something. In this instance, she continued, it had become much more: partnership important enough to be a value that stands on its own. Ms. Nathanson said an agreement was reached between the City and the University, and also with the voters through approval of the park concept and the district. A partner drawing back on an agreement causes enough concern that it can damage relations which Ms. Nathanson believed was no small matter. Getting beyond all that, she said, this really is about how the City spends dollars since with dollars goes some degree of influence. The City's degree of influence could be greater if it tied more dollars to that development. Ms. Nathanson said she wanted to avoid today adopting a specific agreement/decision because there was no plan as yet. She acknowledged the University's willingness and commitment to review the master plan and said it seemed that the council should let that happen before any decision was made. Mayor Torrey acknowledged the contentiousness of the situation but opined that the number of people involved was very small, possibly 10 percent of the population. He said his experience was that the majority in the community knew about the research park and supported it. He indicated support for the University's request and suggested educating the public about the details of development north and south of the railroad tracks and assess public opinion. Mayor Torrey hoped the council would vote its direction today to make it clear to the University what the City was willing to do. Paul Farmer, Planning and Development Department Director, said the council has expressed its desire to have the work of his department be policy-driven, with direction from one of the major policy documents, the Growth Management Study. He was also reminded of the nodal development exercises underway and said if the growth boundary was to be meaningful, it was expected to change. He noted that two of the largest nodes were downtown and the University, which related to the environmental frame, ridges, and rivers. Mr. Farmer shared his professional experience in dealing with waterfronts and research parks in Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Minneapolis and said a theme nationwide is to clean-up brown fields on waterfronts--what has already been going on in Eugene. He said open spaces are being added to riverfronts but so are more activity centers- -both considered high value/high amenity uses. Mr. Farmer said the great campuses of the world have memorable outdoor rooms and buildings, citing the University of Oregon among them and adding that creating those outdoor rooms is just as important as the buildings. He said the district between Franklin Boulevard and the river was critically important to the City. Mr. Farmer said staff believed that the issue was more than just the research park and had suggested conducting a companion study, the cost and scope to follow at the council's direction. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Referring to page 188 of the meeting packet, Mr. Meisner wondered if there was a plan to repay the University for its operational and capital investment in the park. Staff indicated there was a distinction made between infrastructure and other expenses. Mr. Meisner called attention to a discrepancy in figures in A. 1. and A.4 and asked staff to account for the $70,000. Mr. Kelly said it was for bonded debt, which would lower the average homeowner's property tax about $1 annually. Addressing a follow-up question from Mr. Meisner, Tom Dyke, University of Oregon, said intellectual property of faculty are distributed to the faculty member, the work unit where the intellectual property was developed, and to the University in equal amounts (in licensing fees, equity and various other arrangements). Mr. Meisner wondered if Option 3 could be modified by extending the park planning effort to the entire area (including that outside the research park). City Attorney Glenn Klein said the council could direct such a project. Mr. Meisner said Option 4 erroneously tied the termination of the Riverfront Urban Renewal District with termination of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Klein confirmed that terminating the agreement would not necessitate terminating the renewal district. Mayor Torrey explained the University's request that the council provide urban renewal funds to conduct a study of the research park as outlined in Option 2, but deleting the phrase after "City." In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mayor Torrey explained that the University conducted an extensive study of the research park with a study group that recommended proceeding with a planning process, with funding from urban renewal (Option 2). Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to adopt Option 2: to undertake a joint effort with the University of Oregon in which the Riverfront Design Advisory Committee and the Riverfront Commission are charged to analyze the Riverfront Review Committee's recommendations and make refinement recommendations to the University of Oregon and City on appropriate density, setbacks, open space, timing, and design. Mr. Kelly said he favored a continued partnership with the University to conduct the study provided it included representation from citizens interested in preservation and prohibited capital expenditures before the report was presented to the council. He opined that the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement could be revisited without jeopardizing the integrity and value of the partnership. He said he believed the goals of the research park and preservation of land were consistent. Mr. Farr acknowledged that the area will change whether the City has any say. He expressed support for the motion as it allowed for the City's input to the greatest extent. Ms. Nathanson noted that the council's action had already deleted the item from the budget via the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and there was no need to do anything else. She said it was prudent and fine to review intergovernmental agreements but the trouble was that the discussion was initially framed for council as breaking the agreement. Mr. Rayor said he wished to reserve the right to review the agreement, adding that he disagreed that the funding was insignificant taken over the ten years. He noted that the City owned land contiguous to the park that appeared to be underutilized that would benefit from some review in the broader context. Mr. Rayor said he could support Option 2 if it contained language offering some protection to the north side of the tracks. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 5 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson reviewed the council's options: 1) a study review restricted to the park only with a restricted set of people; or, 2) a review study of the entire district, which includes the research park. She said if Option 1 was chosen, there was nothing to preclude the council from approving a companion study to include the area outside the research park. She said this was not an ideal solution but it integrated both interests. Mr. Farmer described staf?s concept for the companion study, adding that the broader study might take longer to complete. Mr. Dyke said the UO wished to do a study that fleshed out the recommendations of the Riverfront Research Park Faculty Review Committee concerning University land. The University would cooperate with the wider study, but believed it did not have the resources and would not be a primary participant. Mr. Johnson noted that Option 3 seemed to do both: "undertake the effort described in Option 2 and undertake a companion study." Addressing a question from Mr. Meisner on Option 2, Mr. Farmer said "joint" was intended to refer to staffs. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dyke agreed with the interpretation. Mr. Lee said it was appropriate to undertake planning, but at some point there is a need to discuss the broader issue. He said he would support the motion but hoped to continue the broader discussion. Ms. Taylor said the University, as used in the discussion, referred to very few people. With regards to the tracks, she said that was a good place to start, adding that in some places land further back from the tracks should be preserved. Mr. Pap~ asked if the motion was legally consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Klein said the agreement speaks of a joint project and assigns responsibility to each of the partners and there is nothing in the agreement that speaks to the specific action in the motion. Mr. Kelly reiterated his opposition to Option 2, adding that he would offer a motion increasing the number of people involved in the study. Mr. Meisner agreed and ascertained that the agreement provided for termination by either party to it. The motion failed, 3:5; with councilors Farr, Pap6, and Nathanson voting in favor. Mr. Lee expressed disappointment that the UO did not allow for flexibility in the language. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, that the City undertake a joint effort with the University of Oregon involving the Riverfront Advisory Committee, the Riverfront Commission, City staff, and at least two citizen members with a demonstrated commitment to maximum feasible preservation of the area north of the railroad tracks; these groups will jointly analyze the Riverfront Review Committee's recommendations and make refinement recommendations to the University and the City on appropriate density, setbacks, open space, (for example, preservation of Riverview and Gateway sectors), timing and design. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 6 11:30 a.m. Addressing a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Kelly said he would be concerned if one of the groups included in the motion refused to participate, noting that the only additions had been citizen participants. Mr. Nathanson said the intent of the motion seemed to be to temper a study and review of the design from a group of people who are pro-development by adding two who are against development. Mr. Kelly responded that his intent was to get the different views of development, not specifically anti-development. Ms. Nathanson said she spoke plainly because that was what the public would understand from the council's action. She agreed that different views of development should be solicited and wondered why a Planning Commissioner was not included. Mr. Kelly responded that he was trying to broaden representation without making it large enough to be unmanageable. Addressing a question from Mr. Klein, Mr. Kelly said he wished the points of view of all the groups, including City staff, to be brought to the table. Mayor Torrey clarified that his motion related only to the Riverfront Research Park. The council honored Ms. Taylor's request to have Mr. Tublitz comment. Mr. Tublitz said the proposal was a workable plan but if he had an option, he would add more citizen input and seek a more balanced input from a variety of community members. Ms. Taylor said she agreed, adding that people from the University opposed to the development should be included on the committee. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by adding that the sense of the council is to preserve the land north of the railroad tracks. Ms. Nathanson said the railroad tracks was an artificial boundary, favoring instead language about increasing the amount of land protected. Several councilors expressed opposition, citing Ms. Nathanson's concern. The motion to amend failed, 3:5; with councilors Meisner, Rayor, and Taylor voting in favor. Ms. Taylor called for increased citizen participation should the proposal move forward. Mr. Meisner shared the concern with the number of citizens on the committee but did not wish to offer an amendment. The main motion passed, 5:3; with councilors Meisner, Rayor, and Taylor opposed. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that staff develop a detailed work plan, budget, and schedule for a planning effort for portions of the Riverfront Urban Renewal District outside the Research Park boundaries; such a planning effort would Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 7 11:30 a.m. be coordinated as appropriate with Research Park and North Downtown planning efforts. Mr. Meisner clarified that the intent was to have staff bring back a proposal for the council's approval. Mr. Lee called for the question. The motion calling for the question passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, that the council's sense be expressed as "in the park planning efforts, as much open land as possible shall be preserved in the Gateway and Riverview areas of the Riverfront Research Park." Ms. Taylor said she would support the motion but said the phrase "as much as possible" was open to interpretation. Mr. Kelly said he also supported the motion despite the vagueness, which also offered flexibility. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern, explaining he could not see how the City can enforce that on property it does not own, unless it attempted condemnation. Ms. Nathanson said the effect of the motion will indicate that the council is likely to be very favorable to granting urban renewal funds if an alternate plan is developed and much more land is preserved, and it also gives the signal that if the plan is status quo, the council will dislike it. Mr. Fart said the sense of the council was inherent in the previous motion so he would vote against the motion. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the City controls much land it does not own. Mr. Lee said the motion simply continues the discussion started long ago and he was frustrated that a more concrete decision was not made with regard to the use of urban renewal funds. He added that he would vote for the motion, hoping it does not turn into a two-year process. Mr. Meisner expressed support for the motion and ascertained that the district expired in the year 2005. The motion passed, 6:2; with Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap6 opposed. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 8 11:30 a.m. (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 9 11:30 a.m.