Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/23/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall February 23, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Laurie Swanson Gribskov. The Adjourned February 18, 1998, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. I. POLICE ACTION REVIEW UPDATE City Manager Vicki Elmer recalled that Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad had found in mid- January that there was no evidence to support the prosecution of criminal charges against Eugene Police Officers in 35 out 36 allegations resulting from the June 1, 1997, incident. At that time, he involved a special prosecutor from Linn County to review the 36th incident to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Ms. Elmer announced that the review had been completed and findings released earlier today indicated that there was no evidence to support criminal charges in that final incident. Addressing a question from Mr. Farr, Acting Police Chief Jim Hill said the City has yet to conduct its internal review of the incident, which should be completed within 60 to 90 days. Mr. Lee asked staff for more details about the 36th incident, specifically what was meant by "not substantiated." Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Lee to submit his request in writing. Mr. Laue asked staff to provide findings from the Oregon State Police and Lane County regarding the protester who tenaciously held onto a tree. ii. URBAN RENEWAL Development Division Manager Lew Bowers noted that both the Council Committee on Infrastructure and Planning Services and the Council Committee on Finance have discussed the topic. He reviewed the key policy issues before the council as follows: 1. Does the council have objectives or projects it wishes to accomplish within the current urban renewal districts? 2. Is urban renewal the most effective tool to accomplish those objectives? Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. 3. Is completing those projects a higher priority than alternative use of General Fund dollars if the districts were terminated? Mr. Bowers explained that Measure 50 required that elected officials of jurisdictions with urban renewal districts decide whether they should be continued at their base increment, or continued at a "grandfathered" (enhanced) increment. He said that if a decision about a district was not made by June 30, 1998, it would be required to be continued at its base increment and that no other opportunity would be available to choose an enhanced increment. He said that Measure 50 did not require that a public vote be taken on the status of districts. Mr. Bowers referred to wall charts listing major accomplishments and plan objectives of the urban renewal districts, noting their correlation to the council's adopted growth management policies. He identified those projects that had not been completed, pointing out that creation of a new library was an objective of the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan which had not been accomplished. Sue Cutsogeorge, Administrative Services, reviewed information on wall charts which explained urban renewal collection options under Measure 50: 1) "Traditional Method" used prior to the passage of Measure 5 in 1990; and 2) "Urban Renewal Special Levy," which is available to existing districts provided certain steps are taken to "grandfather" them. She noted that the special levy did not require voter approval. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated that Measure 50 allowed for different combinations of the two methods, but communities must decide on a method no later than June 1, 1998, otherwise they would be forced to collect the lower level of revenues. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the main differences among the three options were the total revenue that could be collected for urban renewal; whether additional funds would accrue to the General Fund; and, what the effect would be on the taxpayer. The comparisons are listed below: · After repayment of its debt, termination of the district could result in a one-time increase to the General Fund of approximately $650,000, or $4-6 million could be available for district capital projects. The owner of a home with the average assessed value of $115,520 would receive an annual property tax bill reduction of $26. · If the base option was chosen (or was imposed by default from lack of action), $1.55 million would continue to be collected by the Traditional Method, $0 would be provided annually to the General Fund, and $11-13 million could be available for district capital projects during the life of the district. The owner of a home with the average assessed value of $115,520 would receive an annual property tax bill reduction of $26. · If the grandfathered option #2 was chosen, $2.91 million could be collected by a citywide Urban Renewal Special Levy, approximately $650,000 would be provided annually to the General Fund, and $23-25 million could be available for district capital projects during the life of the district. The owner of a home with the average assessed value of $115,520 would receive an annual property tax bill increase of $33. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that if the enhanced option #1 were chosen, the traditional method would collect about $1.55 million and the special levy about $1.36 million, $0 would be provided to the Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. General Fund, and there would be no change in what the taxpayer pays. She described enhanced option #3 as a combination of #1 and #2, with effects approximately halfway between the two. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained the downtown district's resources and requirements. At Mr. Laue's request, Ms. Cutsogeorge provided amounts for the downtown district's administrative costs and central service allocation. Mr. Laue noted that administrative costs consumed ten percent of the fund. Mr. Bowers indicated that administrative costs were a function of the projects the council chose to do. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that if the district were defeased, the debt could be paid off in FY99. Mr. Bowers explained how either capital or General Fund revenue produced by the Downtown Urban Renewal District decisions could be used to create or operate a library within the district. Mr. Laue asked staff to develop another option: terminate the downtown district and convert the taxpayer's $26 into a bond. Mayor Torrey wondered if the City could "underlevy" and mandate no changes. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he believed it was possible and would clarify that issue at the council's April 6 meeting. Addressing a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Bowers said the bonding option raised by Mr. Laue required voter approval. Mr. Bowers explained that if the council decided to improve the library at its current site, it would lose the grandfathered options. Mr. Bowers described alternatives to the urban renewal districts, including the pros and cons. He said staff analysis of these would be provided at the April 6 meeting. He reviewed decision processes and a likely time line for the process to be followed by the City Council. He noted that the Council Committee on Finance was recommending that, if an enhanced increment option is chosen, a public advisory vote on the ordinance establishing it be held in September. He said such a vote would not require a "super majority" to be passed because it would not officially be a decision on a revenue measure. The commitee also recommended that the council consult with the Riverfront Research Park Commission before taking action on the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. He said that the committee's recommendation required a Planning Commission recommendation, input from Lane County, and a public hearing. Mr. Bowers noted that the Chamber of Commerce has raised some issues, including concern about administration of the district. Mr. Meisner added that three members of the Committee on Infrastructure also expressed concern about the district's administration. Mr. Bowers asked the council to respond to the following questions: 1. Should staff continue to work on using urban renewal funds for a new library? Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. 2. Should staff continue to work with other interested parties to develop a list of other projects in preparation for the council's April 6 work session? 3. Is there any other information the council needs to make a decision? 4. Does the council want to refer the issue of the Riverfront district to the Riverfront Commission for a recommendation? Mr. Bowers indicated that the council may also treat each district differently. Addressing a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Bowers said that the recommended option had no net benefits to schools. Mr. Tollenaar reported that the Council Committee on Finance voted to recommend enhanced option 2, subject to referral of the ordinance to a public vote in September and to refer the other district to the Riverfront Research Park Commission for its recommendation. Mr. Meisner expressed concern with proposals in which proceeds must be used within the district. If enhanced option #2 were chosen, it may not be enough support for a new library downtown, much less operations. He said that, at this point, he was reluctant to support any of the options presented. Mr. Meisner said it was his impression that the Riverfront Research Park Commission wished no changes to its plan. He asked staff to provide analysis on intergovernmental agreements and explain to him "wherein we agree, independent of the renewal district, to pay for the infrastructure in the research park." Mr. Fart said he was hesitant to refer any increases in property taxes, regardless of the windfall to the General Fund. He clarified that no decision about the library has been made and that should be made clear. Mr. Laue argued that most goals for the downtown district have been accomplished and he could not support continuing it. He asked the council to consider another option: Defease the district and refer to voters in September the question of authorization for using those funds for other projects such as the library. Ms. Elmer reminded the council that if it chose a project requiring operating funds, those needed to be provided for. Mr. Bowers reiterated that if any of the grandfathered options were chosen, the projects must be specified. If the base option were chosen, the council needed to be no more specific than the existing plan. Ms. Nathanson said she was not prepared to make a decision. She referred to the downtown as "everybody's neighborhood" and said it was very important to the entire community. She said that downtown was much better now than ever before due to planning, public and private investment. Ms. Nathanson said she was interested in ensuring that the downtown continued to improve and thrive and if the council decided to defease the district, some of the funds accrued to the General Fund should be used toward that purpose. At the same time, she added, it was important to pay attention to administration costs. Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Tollenaar said that choosing option 2 now did not necessarily bind the council and could be used as a placeholder and simply not levy. He suggested that the total tax bill was more important than the marginal increases in individual tax bills. Mr. Tollenaar added that funding measures were more likely to succeed if voters were clear about the purpose for the money. In response to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Elmer said staff agreed with the committee's recommendation because it provided a way for meeting the council's goals. Mr. Lee said the council's funding decisions should be driven by public needs and he hoped this would be addressed in the council's next discussion. He added that he was particularly interested in how "this makes sense" within the context of the "vertical/horizontal equity analysis" discussed in a prior meeting. Ms. Taylor did not support using urban renewal funds for the library. She said she was also opposed to referring the issue to the Riverfront Research Park Commission and requested information on the City's ties to the University. Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments about the downtown. He said the downtown district's major accomplishment was the capacity to carry out projects downtown that would otherwise be impossible. He disagreed with Mr. Tollenaar that the marginal increase to individual tax bills was insignificant, adding that the cumulative impact was significant. Mr. Fart expressed concern that defeasing the Riverfront district would diminish the City's capacity to give input into that development. Finally, he added, he was not in favor of making any decision prior to the April 13 public hearing. Mr. Meisner favored a comprehensive approach in referring anything to voters. He asked for more details on what urban renewal money had been spent downtown over the last 20-30 years. Mr. Meisner cautioned about using the library to "save" the urban renewal district, calling it "high risk" behavior. Ms. Nathanson recalled that the Downtown Plan and subsequent update received community input. She suggested reviewing and prioritizing the list of projects and objectives to see which could still be accomplished on a reduced budget. The council could do the same for deciding if any of those could be accomplished using the General Fund. Ms. Nathanson said that having more details about administrative costs would help in assessing the projects and setting priorities. Finally, she pointed out the distinction between the Riverfront Research Park and the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, which is a larger area with some important improvements that could be done to benefit the entire district. Mr. Laue said the district should be considered in terms of what public benefit it accomplishes and if that benefit can be realized in any other way. He agreed with Mr. Fart that the cumulative effect on individual tax bills was important, adding that enhanced option 1 seemed the "best deal." He supported receiving a historical perspective from Riverfront Research Park Commission. Ms. Nathanson said the status quo was not an option for her and if the district was continued, the City needed to demonstrate to voters that it can do a better job managing it. Mayor Torrey said the district was never meant to be anything other than a tool and it should be defeased unless there are projects that need to get done. He said he would decide on Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m. continuing the district based on the projects proposed. He noted that the option recommended included library operations and asked the council to leave this option open and postpone any decision to after the public hearing. Ms. Elmer indicated that the council's February 25 work session would raise urban renewal in the context of the City's Multi-Year Service and Funding Plan. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to advise staff to continue to investigate using urban renewal for a new library; and to work with interested parties to develop a list of other projects in preparation for the April 6 council work session; and to refer the issue of the Riverfront Urban Renewal District to the Riverfront Research Park Commission for a recommendation. Mr. Laue asked that the option he suggested earlier in the meeting be included in the staff analysis for discussion on April 6. Both the maker and the Tollenaar agreed to Mr. Laue's friendly amendment. Mr. Meisner said he favored the motion, contingent on holding a public vote. The council agreed that this was understood. He also asked that it be clear that the council sought advice from the Riverfront Commission--not a position recommendation. The council concurred. Mr. Farr requested information, for the April 6 discussion, on the vacancy rate within the district. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager Pro Tern (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m.