Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/27/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 27, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Mr. Zelenka called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. and noted that Mayor Kitty Piercy and City Manager Jon Ruiz were in Portland attending the high speed rail symposium. WORK SESSION – Local Economic Development Plan – Part 2 A. Planning Development Executive Director Susan Muir presented the second half of the Economic Development presentation as a follow-up to the previous work session discussion on April 13, 2009. Ms. Muir noted that the topics covered in the presentation had been drafted in response to the Council’s comments made during the April 13, 2009 work session and were focused on maximizing economic opportunities with a minimum of adverse impact on the livability of the City. Planning Development Loan Analyst Amanda Nobel noted the three previous discussion items from previous work sessions and which had already been acted on by the Council: ? Increase funds available for rehabilitation of private and non-profit affordable rental housing ? Provide enhanced supportive services homelessness and housing assistance ? Increase Business Development Fund (BDF) capacity by directing some federal stimulus funds into BDF; foreclosure counseling Ms. Nobel noted that the three above-referenced items had provided approximately $1.2 million to support economic investment and needed community services. Ms. Nobel noted that the current discussion would focus on the following proposals for City action to support economic developments: the sale of surplus real estate for identified development projects, limited land use code amendments and Urban Renewal Plan (URP) amendment. Ms. Nobel proceeded to describe each of the three proposals and their corresponding next steps in greater detail for the benefit of the Council. Ms. Noble, speaking with respect to the limited land use code amendments proposal, noted that current economic conditions made it very difficult for projects to proceed as originally planned and further noted that the amendments would provide a certain amount of flexibility with regard to timing and submittal requirements thereby encouraging increased development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Noble, speaking with regard to the urban renewal plan amendment proposal, demonstrated several examples of potential projects. She further noted that the spending cap in the urban renewal plan would need to be expanded to provide the capacity to support those projects. Ms. Noble demonstrated a draft timeline regard the urban renewal plan amendment proposal for the benefit of the Council. Ms. Noble noted the City Manager's recommendation for the benefit of the Council. Ms. Noble and Planning & Development Senior Management Analyst Denny Braud, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the City's surplus property at 901 Franklin Avenue had been acquired by the City after it had been condemned and the original owner had missed their opportunity to repurchase it. Mr. Braud further commented that the property had been condemned several years ago as part of the right of way of the western entrance to the Riverfront Research Park. Ms. Taylor felt that the original owner of the 901 Franklin Avenue should have the "first shot" at developing it. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the public involvement plan surrounding the limited land use code amendments proposal would be reviewed by the City's planning commission in order to ensure that the public was sufficiently informed through the use of open houses, electronic media communications and various stakeholder group meetings. Ms. Muir further confirmed that the Council would make the final decision regarding the proposal. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the University of Oregon was in the process of conducting a study regarding the downtown property that was at one time being developed by Opus NW and that the University's study would be completed within the next 60 days. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the Park Blocks Master Plan included under the urban renewal plan amendment proposal, noted that the City had been working for several years with the Saturday Market and the Farmers Market to ensure that their needs were sufficiently met. She further noted that the Parks Blocks Master Plan's purpose was to ensure that both markets would have the opportunity to continue and thrive. Ms. Muir, responding to a comment from Ms. Taylor, suggested that the projects listed under the urban renewal plan amendment proposal might be feasible without the debt limit increase under the proposal but that the amendment was designed a tool to help facilitate those projects. Ms. Taylor expressed that she would not vote to increase the debt limit as described in the urban renewal plan amendment proposal. Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, commented that discussions surrounding the disposition of surplus property funds would happen concurrently with future work sessions regarding the matter. Ms. Medary, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Clark, noted that the staff recommendations outlined in the next steps for the surplus property proposal would include a review of most if not all of the surplus property currently owned by the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Braud, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the limits to the expansions described under the urban renewal plan amendment proposal had not yet been finalized and further noted that those limits would be subject to Council approval. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Muir, noted that any expansions to the urban renewal plan amendment as described under the proposal would ultimately need to go before the voters. Ms. Ortiz asked for further details regarding the potential Veterans Administration hospital in the downtown. Ms. Muir responded that there would most likely need to be an RFP submitted for the project to proceed. Ms. Ortiz recognized that one of the main challenges in the implementation of the downtown VA hospital project was the costs associated with the VA's move from their current medical office building and hoped that the City of Eugene might find a way to support the VA's efforts in that regard. Ms. Muir noted that the site for the potential VA hospital was outside the current urban renewal district boundaries and the proposal for the urban renewal plan amendment provided for a discussion of expansion of the boundary to accommodate the VA hospital. Planning & Development Principal Planner Steven Nystrom, responding to a question from Mr. Brown regarding the land use code amendments proposal , noted that while an exhaustive study of stalled projects had not been conducted there were approximately 100 projects pending completion with 60 of those within one year of expiring. He noted that any projects whose permits expired would incur huge costs to both the developers and the City as the projects would basically need to start over from the beginning. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Brown regarding the division of tax impact on overlapping tax jurisdictions as they pertained to the bonded debt division School District 4J, explained how urban renewal could be used to pay down bonded debt. She noted that allowing the urban renewal to expire would not allow bonded debts to be paid off sooner, but would only affect the amount of taxes paid by the citizens of Eugene.; Planning & Development Grants Manager Stephanie Jennings, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the homelessness/housing assistance and business development funding assistance that had been acted on by the Council on May 11 and May 26, respectively, had been funded with federal ARRA stimulus funding assistance, while the funding for the housing rehabilitation acted on by the Council on April 27 had come from the regular federal CDBG funding allocation. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification on how the proposal for the sale of surplus City property would relate to a previous budget committee motion. Ms. Medary responded that the proposal being discussed had originated before the budget committee's discussions and subsequent motion regarding the matter and that the disposition from any sale of surplus property would be discussed in much greater detail in subsequent Council meetings. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, commented that the economic development expected to be prompted by the sale of surplus property could come in a variety of ways including the jobs created and the value of services provided by the development of the property. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the limited land use code amendments called primarily for extensions of time on development permits as well as other options that might be taken before the public at a later time. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the proposed increases to the boundary and debt limits of the urban renewal district represented substantial amendments to current policies and would subsequently be subject to a public vote. Mr. Zelenka hoped that any expansions to the urban renewal district would be for specific projects with specific dollar amounts attached to each one. Ms. Muir responded that further staff research and recommendations taken under the next steps directed by Council would include much more specific information in that regard. Mr. Pryor hoped that the Council’s discussions regarding the economic development plan would include a discussion of the appropriate role of local governments with respect to private sector development in the community. He noted that he would be willing to talk about urban renewal and continued economic investment in downtown development so long as the projects came with specific details regarding their costs and construction plans. Ms. Medary, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, clarified the nature of the limited land use code amendment proposal and noted that it would not be used to put specific projects on hold but rather to allow those projects whose permits were close to expiring more time to complete their development or construc- tion. Mr. Nystrom further noted that the code amendments would apply primarily to private development investments rather than City infrastructure projects. Mr. Nystrom commented that the limited land use code amendment proposal was essentially designed to keep private development projects alive until a time when they were more economically viable. Mr. Poling supported the proposal to sell off the City’s surplus property. Mr. Poling felt that any expansions to the urban renewal district should be relatively narrow in focus and directed toward specific projects such as the VA hospital. Ms. Cutsogeorge and Mr. Braud responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that not all surplus properties for sale would be subject to an RFP and that while the RFP process was sometimes laborious the Council could choose to direct staff to proceed with the sale of surplus properties through more direct means. Mr. Braud described the basic functions of the RFP process for Ms. Solomon and the Council’s benefit. Ms. Solomon noted that her support of urban renewal strategies had waned in recent years and further noted that she would only support expansion of the urban renewal district boundary if it could correspon- dingly be narrowed on the north end to allow for south end expansion and contingent upon the implementa- tion of the VA hospital project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Brown advocated for the dissolution of the urban renewal district as a means toward stimulating downtown development and maintained that other members of the community and other communities around the country shared his position. He urged the Council members to google Multnomah County Chair Ted Wheeler to learn more regarding his views on urban renewal districts as they applied to the Portland- Metro area. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to urban renewal strategies as well as any corresponding expansions of the urban renewal district and maintained that they represented a "stealth slush fund" for private sector interests. Mr. Clark hoped that any sale of surplus property would move swiftly and unencumbered in order to maximize the cost-effectiveness of any such sale. He maintained that he had never been a “big fan of urban renewal” and agreed with earlier comments that any expansions in that regard should be attached to very specific projects that were easily understandable by the public. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that there remained approximately half a million dollars remaining before the current urban renewal debt limit was reached. Mr. Zelenka requested a list of all tools beyond urban renewal tax increment financing that were available to the City for projects such as had been described in the earlier presentation as well as a more specific accounting of the funds received through urban renewal strategies. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the information Mr. Zelenka had requested would be included in the report on the urban renewal plan that was required by state statute to be conducted as the plan progressed. Mr. Zelenka noted that detailed accounting figures had not been included in the report on the previous urban renewal plan. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the urban renewal district might be expanded in order to include the current Eugene City Hall facility and adjacent properties since the City was expected to move into a new facility sometime in the near future. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor’s earlier comment and maintained that the urban renewal district represented an opportunity for members of the public and private sector business interests to invest in downtown Eugene. She asked the Council members how they expected to fund City services and programs without revenue generating strategies such as the urban renewal district, enterprise zones or the garbage hauler surcharge fee. She reiterated that the City’s urban renewal process did not take money directly away from School District 4J as the school district was funded through state channels. She believed that the urban renewal district stimulated business growth that would directly result in the creation of downtown jobs for the community. Mr. Brown stated that an accounting of the tax divisions related to urban development had been provided to Council by staff. Mr. Brown was skeptical that the continued use of urban renewal districts would positively benefit downtown development and quoted documentation from economists at Iowa State University to support his opinion. He urged the staff and other Council members to offer documentation or statistics refuting his position. He offered to compile a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of the urban renewal district in Eugene throughout its 51 year history. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon responded to Ms. Ortiz’s previous comment and noted that her own support of the urban renewal district had waned because the two most notable recent example of urban renewal development, the Eugene Public Library and the Hult Center for the Performing Arts, did not generate any tax revenue for the City. She maintained that urban renewal strategies had not worked to facilitate the development of private sector businesses and investments in the downtown area. Mr. Zelenka reminded the Council that local taxation policies related to urban renewal were essentially irrelevant with respect to School District 4J since school funding processes had been removed from local jurisdictions to be funded primarily at the state level. Mr. Pryor noted that he was not wedded to any funding strategy that did not work effectively for the City, but noted that any effective partner strategy for the City with respect to downtown development would need to come with some sort of financial benefit to all partners involved. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to pursue the next steps, as outlined, to implement the “sale of surplus City real estate for identi- fied development projects.” The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to initiate code amendments to consider extensions, submittal requirements, and processing timelines related to land use applications. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, confirmed that the motion directed staff only to research the code amendments and that no formal action would be taken in that regard without Council approval. Ms. Taylor offered a friendly amendment to the previously stated motion to include a sunset provision whereby any amendments to the limited land use code would have a two year time limit. Ms. Muir reminded Ms. Taylor that the motion currently on the table was to direct staff to return with further information regarding the limited land use code amendments. Ms. Taylor subsequently withdrew her friendly amendment. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to pursue next steps, as outlined, to implement “Urban Renewal Plan amendment.” Mr. Poling noted that the discussions surrounding the urban renewal plan during the work session did not constitute any formal changes to the plan. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling’s assessment. Mr. Zelenka noted that he supported certain urban renewal projects described in the earlier presentation such as the Farmers Market and the downtown arts and cultural center. He reiterated his previous request to have a list of all development tools beyond urban renewal tax increment financing that were available to the City and felt that such a list might help the City’s efforts to research and consider more effective means of encouraging responsible downtown development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor worried that using the word “pursue” in the previously stated motion might allow staff to proceed with amendments to the urban renewal plan without prior Council approval. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a comment from Ms. Taylor, noted that any remaining monies from the urban renewal tax proceeds would be returned to the taxing districts. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to both the urban renewal district and the motion that was currently under discussion. Mr. Clark appreciated the thoughtful discussion from the Council regarding the manner in which the City would seek to encourage local economic development and hoped that future discussions would address how the City might help remove any barriers regarding the same. Mr. Brown reiterated his opposition to the urban renewal district. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion. The motion passed 6:2 (Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.) Mr. Zelenka adjourned the work session meeting at 1:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 7 Work Session