Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/09/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon March 9, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). Mr. Clark declared that he did regular business with one of the principals in the firm of W & G Develop- ment (WG) and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict was recusing himself from participation in work session Item A. A. WORK SESSION: th Update on the Sale and Development of 10 and Charnelton Site th Nan Laurence, Planning and Development Department, stated that redevelopment of the 10 and Charnelton site had been the City’s priority for a number of years as it was a key site in the downtown core. She said goals for the site’s redevelopment focused on multi-story, mixed-use development to add vitality and activity to downtown. She said last fall the URA had selected WG and their $34 million proposal for redeveloping the site with 83 housing units over two floors of office space. She said the URA’s decision included direction to staff that if an agreement with WG was not executed by March 31, 2009, negotiations begin with Opus NWR Development. She said staff had worked closely and collaboratively with WG to help the project move forward, but national and local economic conditions had prompted WG to request an extension of at least six months and preferably one year. th Ms. Laurence referred to a document entitled 10 & Charnelton Development Scenarios that described development timelines under the current WG agreement: a WG extension of six months, a WG extension of 12 months and development by Opus. She said the WG project still faced uncertainty because of office tenant and financing issues. She said the $40 million Opus project consisted of 210 units of student housing and Opus had reaffirmed its interest in redeveloping the site. A key feature of the Opus project was continuing strength in the student housing market, despite current economic conditions. She conveyed Opus’ proposal to enter into a binding agreement as soon as possible to purchase the property nine months later; construction would begin in spring 2010 and the project would be ready for occupancy in late summer 2011. City Manager Jon Ruiz clarified that staff regarded the WG proposal as a good mixed-use project with considerable potential for revitalization of the downtown area. He said staff had worked diligently to make the project successful, but it was a much different economic climate now than when the proposal was selected and WG was not in a position to purchase the property by the March 31 deadline. He thought the Opus project was less speculative and had more certainty, largely because of the stability of the target market. He said the Opus project had positive aspects for the downtown area, such as an earlier construc- tion timeline to provide momentum downtown and a strengthened connection to the University of Oregon. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 1 Work Session He said the goal for mixed use downtown could be achieved by looking at downtown as a whole; while a particular project might include mixed uses, housing was one of those uses and the Opus project would support that goal. He recommended that the URA direct staff, in the event the transaction with WG did not close by March 31, 2009, to bring final terms with Opus to the agency as soon as practicable after the council break. Ms. Piercy understood the financial uncertainties everyone faced and while she had supported the decision to select the WG project, it had been somewhat fragile financially and that did not appear to have changed. She felt Opus was in a stronger financial position and had a better chance of success at this time. She supported the City Manager’s recommendation. Mr. Zelenka still felt the WG proposal was the right one with a mix of uses he wanted to see downtown. He agreed that the economic situation had changed, but was willing to grant WG an extension of six months. He was willing to consider a different proposal if nothing was resolved within that six-month period. Mr. Brown pointed out there was no guarantee with the Opus project either. He supported a six-month extension for WG. Mr. Poling liked the WG project because of the mix of uses. He was concerned with the high concentration of college-age people that would occur in downtown under the Opus project and noted the problems that occurred elsewhere in the community where there was a concentration of student housing. He could support a six-month extension, but did not want to see a situation occur similar to the one with Oregon Research Institute (ORI). Mr. Pryor said he liked the idea of student housing downtown and originally favored the Opus proposal, but supported WG when the council selected that project. He could support the WG extension request if it was limited to six months, with a status check at three months. He did not want to abandon WG because of circumstances beyond its control, particularly if an extension would allow the project to move forward. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the Opus proposal was also not a certainty. She asked if the WG proposal could be converted to housing instead of a mixture of office space and housing. Ms. Laurence said that had been discussed but the economics of commercial office space would better support the development and a mix of uses would provide a better return. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he was not certain the nature of the project could be changed by directing staff to convert it to housing. He would need to research whether that was possible and what process would be required. Ms. Taylor stated her preference for changing the WG project to housing only, with half the site used for a park. Ms. Ortiz said she would also like to see the site as open space, but the reality was that there were no funds to pay for that. She could support a six-month extension if there was a check on status at three months. She hoped if it became apparent to WG that the project was not viable it would inform the City of that so another proposal could be considered. Ms. Solomon said she initially supported WG because of the local aspect, but it was a very fragile project from the start and for reasons beyond WG’s control had not come to fruition. She was not convinced that an extension would change that and preferred to let Opus move forward with its project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Ruiz clarified that the check-in at three months was not for the purposes of terminating the agreement; a six-month extension would still be in effect. He noted that WG still had until March 31 to make a decision and could choose not to accept an extension. He also pointed out that it was not certain Opus would still be interested at the end of another six months. He said the council, at its regular meeting, would be considering th a supplemental budget for the URA related to the 10 and Charnelton site and recommended adoption so that the City could respond quickly if the WG project moved forward. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the agency director to amend the purchase and sale agreement to extend the due diligence period from March 30, 2009, to September 30, 2009, and the commencement of construction from November 30, 2009, to May 30, 2010, and request a written update from the developer three months into the extension. The motion passed, 6:1:1; Ms. Solomon voting no and Mr. Clark abstaining. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the agency director to explore with WG the possibility of making the project all housing. Mr. Klein clarified that the intent of Ms. Taylor’s motion was to direct the agency director to investigate and inform the council about the process that would be necessary to convert the project from mixed-use to housing. Mr. Zelenka indicated he was hesitant to direct the developer about how the site should be developed. He understood the need for housing, but if that type of development was viable, WG would make that decision itself. Ms. Solomon expressed concern that the motion would violate the request for proposal (RFP) process. She felt the council would be in violation of the RFP it had issued if it tried to change the nature of the project; if th housing was the desired use on the 10 and Charnelton site the RFP process should be reopened with new parameters. Mr. Pryor said he seconded the motion in order to obtain additional information. The motion failed, 4:3:1; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Brown voting yes, Mr. Clark abstaining. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee Report Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary thanked members of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) for their work on proposed revisions to Ordinance 20374. She introduced committee chair Tim Laue and vice chair John Ahlen. She said Mr. Laue would present the committee’s recommenda- tions. Mr. Laue thanked PAORC members for their dedication to the task set forth by the council and Ms. Medary, Mr. Ahlen and City Attorney Jerry Lidz for their contributions. He provided an overview of PAORC activities and said action had been taken on 12 of the 18 proposed revisions within the time allotted. He said PAORC had decided not to make a recommendation on the auditor’s authority for final adjudication and there was insufficient time to address the remaining issues such as the auditor’s participation in hiring, MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Civilian Review Board oversight of the auditor, subpoena power, training and discipline. He said PAORC was unanimous in recommending to the council that if the council wished, the committee was willing to reconvene to continue to work on those issues. He said additionally PAORC recommended that the council make explicit its expectation that the police auditor and the council would work together to establish policies and procedures to carry out the underlying intent of the ordinance and the Charter and to consider identifying a smaller subset of the council to provide day-to-day supervision of the office of the auditor, and after two years review the council’s experience with that supervision. Ms. Piercy thanked those who participated in the committee for their efforts and responsiveness to the council’s direction. Ms. Taylor stated that her preference was to adopt the original 12 revisions and schedule a work session to discuss the other issues. She suggested voting on each of the PAORC recommendations separately. Mr. Zelenka commented that the committee had fulfilled his expectations and he appreciated the work of those involved. He regretted that representatives of the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) were unable to participate, but felt there was a broad spectrum of people across the community that produced the recommendations, most of which were unanimous. In those cases where support was not unanimous, Police Chief Pete Kerns had dissented and a memorandum explaining his positions was included in the agenda packet. He felt the intent of the original 12 items had been incorporated in the ordinance and many existing practices codified and clarified. He was prepared to move the PAORC recommendations forward to a public hearing, followed by a work session to discuss public input and amendment of the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Piercy said EPEA representatives were unable to participate in PAORC deliberations because some of the issues were considered bargainable and that would present a conflict for them. Mr. Clark asked why the District Attorney did not participate as an active member of PAORC. Mr. Laue replied that the council appointed the committee and did not include the District Attorney in those appoint- ments. Mr. Clark noted that the District Attorney had raised several issues related to the auditor’s office and hoped to hear about those at the public hearing. He suggested that Item 11, regarding a sufficient budget for the police auditor, should specify that expenses should be reasonable. Ms. Piercy said the District Attorney provided written information at the PAORC’s request. Mr. Poling was agreeable to asking the committee to work through the outstanding items on the list. Regarding Section 2.454(5), he felt that allegations against the Police Chief should go directly to the City Manager, who was responsible for hiring and supervising that position. He disagreed that the chief should be considered a police employee under those circumstances. He thought that conducting an administrative investigation concurrently with a criminal investigation was a bad idea; typically in other agencies the administrative investigation was suspended until the criminal investigation was completed to avoid putting officers involved in those cases in a position of making statements that could jeopardize the criminal case. Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Zelenka’s sentiments about the committee. He said there was a great deal of discussion on several of the items and the recommendations reflected those issues that had been resolved; the outstanding issues were too complex to be thoughtfully considered during the time allowed. He commended MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 4 Work Session the committee for the amount of work it completed and was comfortable with the PAORC recommendations. He agreed it was unfortunate that EPEA representatives had recused themselves, but they had provided comments. He said deciding how to deal with outstanding issues could be the next step following disposition of the current recommendations. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the committee’s work and looked forward to input from the community at the public hearing. She hoped that if a committee was established to consider the remaining items it would include some new faces from the community. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the outstanding issues represented a different level of discussion and would change the oversight system somewhat instead of clarifying intent and codifying practices. He hoped the PAORC would be reconvened for that task in order to take advantage of their experience. He said the Police Chief was not defined as a police employee, which was why the committee was recommending the addition of Section 2.454(5) to the ordinance. He said it would treat the chief in a different way while maintaining the oversight system by distinguishing the chief’s administrative role and the responsibility of the City Manager to provide supervision from times when the chief performed the function of a police officer. He said the committee, with the exception of the chief, strongly believed the Police Auditor should have the ability to conduct an administrative investigation concurrently with a criminal investigation to prevent unreasonable delays. Ms. Solomon asked if the language would allow the Police Chief to request that the Police Auditor not pursue an administrative investigation concurrently if circumstances warranted that and in the case of a disagreement, allow that decision to be made by a municipal judge. Mr. Laue said the Police Chief could request suspension of a concurrent administrative investigation, but a dispute would not be resolved by a municipal judge. He said it was clear during the committee’s discussions with others involved in police oversight systems that in 99 percent of cases, concurrent investigations were not an issue; he cited the language recommended by PAORC, which required consultation with the Police Chief and appropriate prosecutor, but left the decision regarding concurrent investigations with the auditor’s office. He said other systems throughout the country were silent on the issue because it was seldom a problem, and it was reasonable to expect the auditor, chief and prosecutor to behave professionally, and do what was in the best interest of the public. Ms. Medary said the City Manager’s recommendation substituted language that would refer resolution of disputes about concurrent investigations to a municipal judge, but that was not the language the committee was recommending. Mr. Clark was intrigued by the recommendation to involve a municipal judge and was interested in more information. He asked if concurrent investigations violated any labor agreements the City currently had in place. Mr. Lidz said he did not believe they would. Mr. Clark said he did not want to leave any issues unresolved that would result in a continuing community argument. He hoped the public hearing process would explore all aspects of issues and recommendations from others. He said the original 12 revisions were put forward as simple implementation of the Charter, but the remaining six items could be perceived as an expansion of the auditor’s authority beyond what the people had voted on. He was not certain the PAORC was the right body to consider expansion of the role of the auditor’s office and a different committee should move forward with the other six items. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor agreed the PAORC did a good job with the 12 items that were straightforward with respect to working within the current ordinance and Charter; it also discussed some of the issues that could be considered policy matters and rightly said that should be considered in a larger arena. He said that could present an opportunity to enhance PAORC membership if it was reconvened to address policy issues. Ms. Ortiz said her interest was in achieving a more balanced membership on the PAORC; she did not object to reconvening the committee to move forward. She thought that some of the policy issues might need to go to the voters. Ms. Solomon suggested consideration of the outstanding items be postponed until a new police auditor was hired. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to accept the committee’s report and move forward with a public hearing on the proposed revisions. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to reconvene the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee after hiring a new police auditor to review and make recommendations to the council on the remaining six issues and before it was reconvened have the City Council reapprove the committee make up. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to work with her and one other councilor (to be appointed by the Mayor unless there is a volunteer) to (a) develop proposed protocols for how the council should fulfill its role as the Police Auditor’s supervisor, including the possibility that the council delegates to the council leadership of the day-to-day supervision of the Police Auditor, and (b) bring that proposal back to a council work session in April or May. Ms. Ortiz said her goal was to conduct some of the research for the council to identify a process for supervising the auditor’s office, including designating council leadership as the information conduit between the auditor’s office and the council. Mr. Clark agreed that supervisory protocols needed to be clarified and volunteered to work with Ms. Ortiz. He felt the lines of communication were very important and the auditor needed to have regular communica- tion with council officers, who could then involve the full council if they felt it was warranted by a particular situation or issue. Mr. Zelenka volunteered to serve on the committee with Mr. Clark and Ms. Ortiz. He agreed that the issue was one of effectively managing day-to-day communication with the council. Mr. Pryor agreed it was not an issue of authority, which rested with the full council, but one of providing appropriate supervision to a council employee. He supported the motion. Ms. Taylor said the matter required more thought and she would not support the motion. Ms. Piercy determined that Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Clark, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Solomon would develop and propose supervisory protocols for the Police Auditor to the council. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 6 Work Session C. WORK SESSION Street Assessment Policy City Engineer Mark Schoening used a slide presentation to provide an overview of the City’s street assessment process, changes in 2000-2001, application of those changes and issues identified by the council. He noted there were 75 miles of unimproved streets in Eugene. He described the regulatory authority for street assessments and stated that the assessment procedure was governed by ordinance adopted by a two- thirds council majority and effective six months after adoption. He reviewed details of the local improve- ment process and formation of a local improvement district (LID). Owners of property bearing more than half the estimated cost could oppose the LID and the council would make the final determination. He said property owners could pay their assessments with personal financing or City financing and financial assistance was available to qualified owners. Mr. Schoening explained changes in the assessment process to achieve greater fairness, including the assessable costs, assessable frontage, equivalent assessments, street subsidy program, corner lots, primary access and vacant or partially developed lots. He said the council had raised the following issues: ? Financing – extend payment period beyond 10 years, defer until sale of property ? LID boundaries – identify travelshed, include cul de sacs, include properties that must use street to access property ? Individual properties – consider depth of property, benefit is the same regardless of frontage Ms. Piercy thanked Mr. Schoening for explaining the assessment process. She said the City had made efforts to be fair, but many people were facing difficult financial circumstances and property owners were very concerned about the amount of their assessments. Ms. Taylor objected to the assessment methodology, which she felt was unfair and unjust. She said most property owners would not qualify for the financial assistance options because of the low income require- ments. She noted that assessments were levied at completion of a project and asked why changes to the ordinance could not be enacted now, since the effective date in six months would still occur before the completion date of projects begun this summer. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the council could change the code; the question was when the change would become effective. According to the Charter, code changes became effective six months after adoption and would not apply to any improvements authorized by the council prior to that effective date. He said if the council wished to make changes to the code that would apply to projects like Crest Drive, those projects would have to be delayed until next summer. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Ruiz said that the council could change the assessment methodology, but in order for them to apply to the Crest Drive project, that project would need to be postponed until 2010. Mr. Schoening added that no-interest loans were possible, but a funding source for the City to carry the interest was an issue. He said the City would sell bonds to finance the assessable portion of the project and there would be interest on those bonds, but the City could pay the interest if a funding source was available. Ms. Taylor asked if federal stimulus funds could be used to finance the project. Mr. Schoening said they could be used for street improvement projects, but were limited to streets classified as collectors and above. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark thought the council’s last changes to the assessment ordinance, with a couple of exceptions, had resulted in a fair policy because everyone paid for the curbs, gutters and roadbed in front of their property. He observed, however, that the assessment amounts were massively unaffordable and no one should lose their home or go bankrupt over a road improvement. He said neighbors could opt to not have the improve- ments done and as a councilor he would not override that decision. He preferred to have the council seek ways to make the project more affordable for property owners and favored strategies such as extending payment periods from 10 to 20 years and paying assessments upon sale of the property. He would support delaying the project until better financing mechanisms were in place. Mr. Poling did not feel the assessment policy was fair. He referred to a project on Arcadia Drive and said there were several neighborhoods that used Arcadia Drive for access, but they did not have to pay for any improvements. He wanted to see those who must use a street for access to share in the cost of improve- ments. He asked how a buyer would know if there was an irrevocable petition on a piece of property. Mr. Schoening said it would be shown on a title report. Mr. Poling said he was willing to delay projects until there could be changes to the ordinance to make the process more equitable. Mr. Zelenka commented that people living on improved streets had already paid for those improvements; people living on unimproved streets had yet to pay. He felt the policy was fair and owners would strongly object if they were assessed not only for improvement of the street in front of their property, but for improvement of nearby streets as well. He was willing to consider changes to the process, but there would always be those who thought the methodology was unfair, no matter what it was. He noted that fairness of the assessment policy was a completely different issue than the affordability of assessments and was willing to postpone projects while the council sought options to make it easier for people to pay assessment costs. He noted that the City wanted to classify streets in the Crest Drive project as collectors, which would have made them eligible for federal funding, but the neighbors had opposed that classification. Mr. Pryor distinguished between discussing assessment policies as they applied throughout the City and issues specific to the Crest Drive project. Regarding assessment policies, he was not certain whether it was fair as circumstances and costs had changed significantly since the ordinance was put in place. He was willing to review the assessment methodology to determine whether changes were necessary. He said the only option for the Crest Drive project was to postpone it until the council had an opportunity to review the current policies as he did not want to see people lose their homes. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Schoening explained that the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would receive $6.5 million in federal transportation stimulus funds. He said the funds would be allocated among Lane County, Coburg, Springfield and Eugene. Staff had proposed funding $3 million in pavement preservation projects in the City of Eugene, consistent with council direction. He said the stimulus funds were subject to all federal requirements and pavement preservation projects were the easiest to get through the federal process because work occurred between the curbs of an existing, improved street and extensive environmental documentation was not required. He explained that property owners across the City paid for improvements on arterial and collector streets through transporta- tion system development charges (SDC) when a home was built; those funds were pooled to pay the community’s share of improvements on arterials and collectors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz asked what other projects would be constructed if Crest Drive, and projects with similar concerns were postponed. Mr. Schoening said the funds to be used for the City’s share of costs would be repro- grammed to other pavement preservation projects, with a portion used to replenish the delayed assessments funds for future LIDs. Ms. Ortiz recognized property owners’ concerns about assessment costs, but she did not want to miss opportunities to provide jobs on road improvement projects. Ms. Solomon asked if Maple Drive and Elmira Road were collectors. Mr. Schoening affirmed that they were. Ms. Solomon remarked that there were at least two mobile home parks with direct access from Elmira Road, representing a large number of homes that would not be assessed for the Maple/Elmira project. She said that seemed unfair and she was willing to review the assessment policies, although she was reluctant to postpone the project. Ms. Piercy said she was willing to consider options like expanding the boundaries of an LID to include cul de sacs that used another street for access, but cautioned that it would be difficult to develop an equitable approach. She also pointed out that in the Crest Drive project if assessments were expanded to property owners beyond those that fronted on the streets being improved, it was only fair that those owners should be able to participate in planning and designing improvements. Mr. Clark commented that people who lived on cul de sacs had already paid for curbs, gutters and roadbed in front of their homes and it was not fair to ask them to pay for improvements on another street. He said it was fair to assess owners for improvements to the streets in front of their property, but the issue was how to make it affordable. He was mindful that project costs would only increase in the future, but wanted to avoid the possibility of people losing their homes because of street improvements. He asked when the council would be making decisions on the affected projects. Mr. Schoening said a decision on the Maple/Elmira project would occur in mid-April and decisions on the Crest/Friendly/Storey and Chad Drive projects were scheduled in mid-May. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to hold another work session to consider a range of options that included financing mechanisms and other questions raised by the council. Ms. Piercy suggested polling the council regarding specific financing mechanisms to be researched by staff in preparation for a work session. Mr. Poling said the financing options identified in the agenda item summary were a good starting point. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 9 Work Session City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 10 Work Session