Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/15/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall April 15, 1998 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. II. ACTION ITEMS A. Approval of City Council Meeting Schedule July to December 1998 Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to approve the meeting schedule. Ms. Swanson Gribskov proposed that the council consider having a conversation soon about its expectations of the interim city manager and what the council's work plan would focus on in the next eight months. She said that could lead to changes in the meeting schedule. Mr. Torrey responded that staff had developed a proposal for the discussion Ms. Swanson Gribskov desired. Mr. Lee suggested that the council delete November 25, the day before Thanksgiving, from the schedule. Mr. Farr asked that the date be retained as an option given the council's limited days for meeting, adding that individual councilors planning to travel could always ask to be excused. Mr. Meisner concurred, saying he preferred to calendar the meeting now and cancel it later. Roll call; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. B. Tentative Urban Renewal Decision Cathy Briner, Planning and Development Department, provided the staff presentation. She reviewed the options previously discussed by the council for the Downtown Urban Renewal District and Riverfront Research Park District. The council members summarized their impressions of the public testimony submitted in writing and orally at the public hearing on April 13. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 1 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson said that testimony was very strong for the library and acceptance of urban renewal as a source of funding. There seemed to be some support for retaining urban renewal for downtown projects but questions as to what degree it had been used effectively. Some expressed support for urban renewal as a tool to maintain downtown as the head of the city. Ms. Nathanson said that the message she received at the hearing and from citizens was safety first, livability second, and compact urban form third. Ms. Taylor said that the council had received testimony that urban renewal had done as much harm as good downtown. She said that the council could have used urban renewal long before to build a new library, which she believed was preferable to what had been done instead. She said that many members of the public seemed to be accepting of urban renewal to build a library even when they did not support urban renewal. Ms. Taylor said that if the council chose to retain urban renewal, it should do so for the purpose of building the library only, and if not used for that purpose, the district should be automatically terminated. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Nathanson's summary of the testimony received at the public hearing. He said that the downtown projects he envisioned were associated with the library and needed for access improvements related to safety and convenience. He did not perceive support for the downtown "projects only" option. He perceived public distrust of the way in which the district was administered. Mr. Meisner said he wanted to retain an option that would provide funding sufficient to build the library that the community needed. He said that he walked through downtown between the library and City Hall, or from the Hult Center to a restaurant, and found pedestrian lighting lacking. There were few benches and some of the sidewalks were in poor condition. Mr. Meisner supported funding downtown projects strictly related to those types of improvements. Mr. Tollenaar said that the hearing had produced good, substantive, well-thought out testimony and he had found it helpful. He agreed there was considerable pro-library testimony and noted the submission of anti-riverfront district testimony. Mr. Tollenaar believed that there were some who called for a status quo approach based on a nostalgia for the way downtowns used to be. Noting the receipt of testimony related to the value of ongoing projects to compact urban growth, he said that he would need to hear more about that issue given that there were so many other elements important to compact urban growth. Mr. Tollenaar said that one individual indicated there was no other source of funding for downtown projects, but he did not believe that was the case given that the council could choose to include downtown projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP); such projects would merely have to compete with other projects in the ClP. Ms. Swanson Gribskov concurred with Mr. Tollenaar regarding the hearing. She said she was narrowing on options B and C or a variant thereof, and suggested that the council consider shrinking the list of options. Ms. Swanson Gribskov observed that there were always some who would be staunchly opposed to urban renewal for their own heartfelt reasons, but she did not think it was a universally shared opinion. Mr. Torrey reminded the council of the five general options relative to the downtown district it had previously forwarded to the public for input and asked if there were any options the council wished to delete from further consideration at this point: A) build no projects; terminate the district; B) preserve option for library only; C) preserve option for library plus downtown projects, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m. grandfathered Option 1; D) preserve option for library plus downtown projects, base option; and E) preserve for downtown projects only. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to delete Option A. Ms. Taylor suggested that the option should be retained in case the library did not get built. Mr. Laue said that the option should be retained in case the council could not agree on a strategy. He said that eliminating the option would eliminate a strategy in which the council would defease the district and put out to the voters a question of converting it to capital and directing the funds back into the library. Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that selecting either Option B or Option C would not rule out termination; the council could always terminate the district. If one of the two options did not work out, he believed the council would want to give the strategy outlined by Mr. Laue serious consideration. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she had suggested eliminating options to determine whether there was clear consensus on the council. She did not perceive that consensus to exist, and suggested the council move on to the staff presentation. Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to table the motion. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Lee and Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Laue said that testimony at the hearing seemed to indicate support for using urban renewal funds to build a new library. He believed there was considerable community support for the library, and said he would be willing to focus on the option that got the community a new library. Lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, reviewed the impact of the options related to the library only on the average annual tax bill. He said that if the council wanted to construct a library using urban renewal funds, Option B(5)(A), Library Only, Grandfathered Option #1 with Underlevy plus Local Option Levy, would be the lowest cost to the taxpayer. Mr. Bowers referred the council to Option C(7)(B), including downtown projects and the library. He said that councilors Meisner and Ms. Nathanson asked what was the most money under the base option that urban renewal could provide to the library. Mr. Bowers said that the option reflected $9 million of urban renewal dollars used to lower the amount of a general obligation bond for the library. The cost was lower than some of the other options and funded the sample library package, leaving $4 million for other projects, the money not eligible for the library. Mr. Bowers said that one of the issues of concern was that the option clearly required a general obligation bond to make up for what urban renewal could not support. A local operating levy would be needed for the operating costs. Mr. Bowers pointed out that currently, both votes required a double-majority of voters. An advantage to the option was that there was no need to specify projects. Mr. Bowers referred the council to Option C(5)(B), prepared by staff in response to a request from Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner. Ms. Nathanson previewed her remarks about the option by noting strong citizen support for a library and its status as a council goal. She said that she wished to preserve the maximum MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m. amount of money to build a library while retaining funding for a list of targeted projects focused on safety and aesthetics in downtown that would benefit citizens using the area. Mr. Meisner said his interests were somewhat different from those of Ms. Nathanson but comparable. He was interested in retaining an option that would fund construction of a new the library but wished to ensure the funds were adequate to do build a library that adequately met the community's needs. Mr. Meisner reiterated his concern about the need for safe and convenient access to the library, which would require further amenities. He said that projects such as street reopenings could be funded from other sources. Mr. Meisner discussed what would represent adequate funding for a new 100,000 square-foot library that could be expanded in the future to accommodate population growth, saying that a minimum of $25 million would be needed. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Sue Cutsogeorge of Administrative Services Department indicated that the maximum amount that could be realized from bonding was approximately $18 million. Mr. Meisner indicated that his previous understanding was that $25 million was available. Ms. Cutsogeorge recollected that staff and the councilors had discussed achieving the entire $25 million would require other means. Mr. Meisner said that was not his recollection. He said that the proposal before the council was different from the proposal he had seen. Ms. Nathanson said it was her understanding from the discussion with staff that other funds would be needed, and some specific sources were cited, such as the proceeds from the sale of the Sears building. Mr. Meisner disavowed the proposal. Ms. Nathanson noted public support as expressed in the survey conducted by the Chamber of Commerce for public improvements that directly benefit citizens while implementing City Council goals and Growth Management Study policies and enhancing livability and safety. She was seeking projects that supplemented the public investment in downtown and stimulated, rather than subsidized, private investment. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the issue for her was how to get to "yes" for the library and "yes" for a safe downtown. She summarized what Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner were attempting to achieve, adding that she also wanted a new library and safe downtown, and applauded the creative thinking on the part of Mr. Meisner and Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that the council was not developing a library financing plan, but was considering how to preserve an option for funding the library through urban renewal in the future. He said that the council should select an option that would represent the best use of urban renewal funds. Mr. Tollenaar said that he would want to hear the Mayor's Library Committee's final report before acting on any proposal to fund the library. Ms. Taylor reiterated that urban renewal had not succeeded in improving downtown, which had lost many retail stores and public spaces. She maintained that library measures had failed in the past because of the way the proposals were packaged. People wanted to vote on a library alone. Ms. Taylor said that the council should defease both urban renewal districts and ask the voters how they wished to spend the tax money they got back. She urged the council not to package a library proposal with other projects or in a manner that would allow the use of the funds for other purposes not directly related to the library. Mr. Lee said that urban renewal was a tool and the council needed to know where it was going to use it appropriately. He said that he was not willing to simply defease the district and lose MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m. revenues to the State and Lane County. He indicated appreciation for the work done by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner. However, he did not think that the addition of a library and related improvements were enough to address the problems downtown. He indicated his belief that the problem with downtown was social. Homeless youth in the downtown have no other place to go. Mr. Lee said that Eugene needed a community center for such youth. He said that the City could continue to improve sidewalks but that would not solve the underlying problem. Mr. Farr said that funding was a problem underlying many of the City's issues. He agreed that the council needed to consider how it was going to use urban renewal as a tool in the future. He believed that the council had an opportunity to provide the future citizens of Eugene with a viable downtown through use of urban renewal. Mr. Farr was supportive of using urban renewal to fund a new library to some degree but also concurred with the comments made by Mr. Lee. He said that urban renewal could be used for many projects that benefit downtown. Mr. Farr did not think $2 million was sufficient for other downtown projects. Mr. Tollenaar said that the council would not be returning the money to the taxpayers by terminating the districts. Eugene residents would realize only $650,000, while passing through to the County and the State another $510,000. Regarding projects in downtown, Mr. Tollenaar indicated it was his preference that any proposal for a youth center be budgeted in the normal manner. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that Option 5C(5)(B), C(7A), and C(7B) were developed because he believed there was some legal risk to adopting Option C(9) related to the specificity of the urban renewal plan. He said that the initial plan adopted in 1968 was adopted under different statutory requirements than those currently in place. The current plan does not identify many specific projects and is general about improvements for access and circulation. Mr. Klein said that upon passage of Ballot Measure 50, the State legislature adopted additional legislation stipulating that if the City wished to take advantage of the grandfathered option, the City must identify specific projects in the plan. He believed that there was a risk that identifying any project in grandfathered option 1 other than the library, a court could conclude that the plan was not valid under the new legislation. Staff believes that grandfathered option 1 for the library only does not pose a risk; grandfathered option 1 for the library and other projects does pose a risk. Mr. Klein estimated that the City had a 50-50 chance of withstanding a challenge to Option C(9). Responding to a question from Mr. Laue, Ms. Cutsogeorge confirmed that she believed the most that could be realized from urban renewal bonds for the library would be about $18 million, if interest rates were favorable. Mr. Laue said that it appeared that $18 million was the maximum that could be realized although he believed it was insufficient for the type of library the community would like to build. He agreed with those who believed that the actualizing that $637,000 as debt service on a library project made good sense. He suggested that a youth center could be incorporated into the library. Mr. Laue said that the $18 million that could be realized should be directed to capital construction for the library, and the council could place other downtown projects into the CIP and prioritize them. Ms. Nathanson explained that she was trying to avoid a stalemate, and differentiated her proposal from the present urban renewal district by pointing to its specificity and focus on projects related to the library. She said that her goal was to reduce administrative costs, save taxpayer money, and accomplish some projects that had broad citizen support. She cited improved pedestrian safety, landscaping, improved lighting, benches, rest rooms, weather coverings, art, public open space features, and improvements to public facilities that directly MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m. benefit housing projects in the public interest as examples. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that any homeless youth center would require operating funds and should be addressed separately. She agreed with Mr. Farr there was a need for such a project, but said she did not perceive council support at the present time. Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to preserve the urban renewal option for potential library construction. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that her motion was intended to establish a threshold as she believed there was general agreement among councilors about the library. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to amend the motion by specifying Option B, library only. Mr. Meisner wanted to find a way to do projects and still have adequate library funding. He did not understand how the grandfathered option could support the library and still realize $2 million for downtown projects. He said that the council should consider downtown projects in the context of all its goals. Mr. Meisner said that if the council adopted the option, it would only be able to use funding for projects on the list, and if the library was the only project on the list it was all the revenues could be used for. He added that adoption of a library-only option would also reduce administrative costs considerably. Ms. Taylor asked if the council could stipulate that the district be defeased if the library did not get constructed. Mr. Klein explained that the answer was tied to whether the ordinance was presented to the voters for approval, and what happened in the event the ordinance was not approved. He said that he would be advised by the motion the council passed when writing the ordinance. Mr. Tollenaar said that he would support the motion offered by Ms. Swanson Gribskov because of Mr. Klein's comments regarding the legality of other options and the possibility of legal challenges. He said that the option retained funding and did not require a public vote. He said that the council would be preserving an option to use urban renewal to finance part or all of library construction costs. Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that given the plan was unlikely to be implemented for some time, there could be an immediate savings to the taxpayer. He said that the implications of the motion included the possibility that the council might have to seek a local option levy to fund library operations if the public rejected a business or personal income tax or some other form of tax. Mr. Lee asked if the $2 million identified for projects in Option C(5)(B) could be directed to library construction. Mr. Bowers responded that the $2 million would not increase the total amount available for a library; it could increase the savings to taxpayers from the underlevy. Mr. Laue said that he was not sure that the council needed to refer an ordinance to the voters. Mr. Farr indicated his support for Option C(5)(B). He said that he would vote no on the motion because he believed the council would be missing an opportunity if it did not direct some funding toward downtown projects. He said that if the council adopted Option 5(C)(B) it would result in a new library and related downtown enhancements that were small but well-placed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m. Ms. Swanson Gribskov opposed the amendment but said that she would support the main motion as the library represented a threshold for her. Mr. Lee expressed concern that the public would perceive the $2 million in projects a "slush fund." Mr. Laue agreed, saying it was easier to explain to people that the sole purpose of the district was the library. He believed that there was a significant political risk to including the $2 million for projects. Mr. Lee said that the council would be improving the downtown by building a new library. He suggested that while removing the funding for projects might represent the "politics of symbolism," he did not want to risk the library for the sake of $2 million in downtown projects. He concurred with Mr. Tollenaar's remarks about funding the youth center. Mr. Meisner said that he would have favored a small, targeted list of projects, but feared that the perception that the council was proposing the establishment of a "slush fund" would imperil any library proposal made to the voters. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about funding for small projects, pointing out that the City currently did not have sufficient funding now for streetlights or sidewalk repairs. She said that downtown was everybody's neighborhood. She did not think the council would find a way to fund projects when they were competing for so few dollars with other projects in other areas. She said that the potential for expansion of the projects list did not exist given the limited funding. Mr. Torrey said that in the case of a tie he would have voted against the amendment because he agreed with Ms. Nathanson that there were needs downtown that must be addressed, but said he also felt strongly about the library. He believed the council would need to find a way to accomplish such projects as those cited by Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Torrey believed that a new library would go a long way to bringing people and movement to downtown. Roll call vote on the motion to amend; the motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Farr, Ms. Swanson Gribskov, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the main motion to direct that if the money available through urban renewal was not used for a library, the district would be terminated after its debt was paid. Mr. Laue asked if the council could pass a motion attempting to bind a future City Council. Mr. Klein responded that while the council could not bind a future council, if it passed the amendment to the motion he could develop an amendment to the plan that stipulated the revenues should be used only for the library and existing debt, and in the case there was not library, to existing debt and the district would be terminated. Mr. Lee suggested that the council "cross that bridge when we get there." Mr. Farr indicated he could not support the motion because defeasing the districts would take money out of the community. Mr. Tollenaar concurred. He said that in addition, the motion as phrased by Ms. Taylor would be the best way to kill a new library because it would focus the opponents of urban renewal on a new way to eliminate urban renewal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Klein said that the plan could be amended to transform it from the grandfathered option to the base option. If, after the grandfathered option was chosen and the plan was amended to include new projects, the district would go back to the base. Responding to Mr. Tollenaar's comments about people focusing on urban renewal as a reason to vote against the library, Ms. Taylor said that if people did not want the council to use urban renewal to fund the library, it should not do so. The motion to amend failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Klein indicated to the council that to meet the time line for the Riverfront District, it merely needed to determine it would not choose a grandfathered option. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Ms. Swanson Gribskov, to adopt Option F relative to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. Mr. Farr asked if the park was zoned appropriately for moving forward with the master plan. Ms. Briner said yes. Mr. Farr asked if terminating the district would allow the University to develop the property as it chose as long as it abided by zoning regulations. Ms. Briner said yes. Mr. Farr said that termination would eliminate any City input into the development of the park. Ms. Briner said that it would affect the relationship between the City and University as the two agencies had worked together to this point. Mr. Tollenaar said that he intended to support the motion; he would be opposed to termination because he believed the original potential of the district still existed. He said that the park had not developed to everybody's satisfaction but he believed that a certain synergy between basic research activities and high tech enterprises had been realized in part. He wished that there was some way to provide assurance to the public that the area north of the railroad tracks could be preserved by amending the zoning district, but he had been told that there was a conditional use permit and the University was proceeding in accordance with the permit. Mr. Tollenaar said that he appreciated the commission's intent to focus development on the south side of the tracks before proceeding with further development to the north. He said that a letter the council received from University of Oregon President David Frohnmeyer spelled out the University's plans in more detail, and he thought those plans took the community where it wished to go. Mr. Laue asked if the conditional use permit could be modified. Mr. Klein said yes, if the holder of the permit requested a modification. Mr. Laue opposed the motion. He said that he did not think the research park had succeeded in meeting its goals. He believed the park area as planned was undersized compared to other parks, and he was unsure that it was an appropriate use for public funding. Ms. Swanson Gribskov supported the motion. She was also concerned about the issue of development north of the railroad tracks. She had discussed the subject with President Frohnmeyer and believed that the review committee will be reporting to the Riverfront Research Park Commission with the intent to do it right. She believed that the park represented a good MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 8 11:30 a.m. partnership, although she agreed that it had not progressed to the extent desired. She was not willing to drop the project at this point. Ms. Taylor said that if the City could not change the conditional use permit, at least it could refuse to contribute dollars to the effort. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to table the motion. Roll call; the motion failed, 6:2, Mr. Lee and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Lee said that there were insufficient federal research dollars coming into Oregon, and he believed the park was a means to secure those funds so that Eugene could enter into the information age. He perceived a win/win situation could be achieved, noting that the review committee would be working on the topic for the next year. He also wanted to preserve the area north of railroad tracks, while providing for research and development and open space. Mr. Lee called on the council to work with the University. He also encouraged the council to adopt a resolution stating its position to the University. Mr. Meisner said that economic development was not a cor service or a goal for him and he was not willing to spend money from the General Fund on the park. He said that he could support research and development south of the tracks, but generally agreed with Mr. Laue's statements. Mr. Meisner expressed annoyance that the tenants in the park were largely relocated from inside the community to the park, rather than from outside the community. He said that he preferred to terminate the district, adding that even if the council terminated the City's involvement, that did not affect what occurred north of the tracks because the University owned the property. He added that there was more than one definition of open space, that is, playing fields versus natural areas. A motion to call the question passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Laue, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Meisner voting no. Mr. Tollenaar agreed to represent the council before the Board of County Commissioners when they discussed the council's preliminary urban renewal decisions. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James D. Johnson City Manager Pro Tern (Recorded by Kimberly Young) R:~1998~Admin Services~CIS ~Councfl~cc980415m l. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 9 11:30 a.m.