Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 03/31/04 Hearing MINUTES Eugene City Council Special Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall March 31, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. HEARING AND ACTION: Appeal of Ballot Title for the Referendum on Ordinance Amending Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Mayor Torrey asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to speak to the appeal of the ballot title for the referen- dum. Mr. Taylor asked City Attorney Jerry Lidz to explain the nature of the hearing. Mr. Lidz stated that, pursuant to Eugene Code Section 2.977, the City Attorney's Office drafted a ballot title for the referendum on an ordinance amending the Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan. Within five days after it was delivered to the City Recorder's Office, Paul Nicholson filed an appeal of the ballot title. He explained that, under the code, the City Council must hold a hearing within ten days to consider the appeal. He instructed the council to listen to a statement from Mr. Nicholson at the present hearing and consider whether or not the ballot title submitted by the City Attorney's office was satisfactory. If it was not satisfactory, the council's charge was to produce a neutral description of the ordinance. He underscored that the charge was not to craft policy. Mayor Torrey said Councilor Nathanson was unable to attend the public hearing because of a family emergency and another councilor had indicated she could only attend until 12:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey invited Mr. Nicholson to present his appeal. Mr. Nicholson stated that he when he made the appeal he did not have the requirements. Subsequent to receiving the requirements, he submitted two versions of his proposals for changes in the ballot title on March 29. Mayor Torrey determined that all members of the council did not have copies of the revised versions of the appeal. Staff was dispatched to make copies. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 1 Special Meeting Mr. Nicholson read aloud the questions in the two versions. He felt his was a much more fair description because, although the ordinance did establish a maximum indebtedness, it was not central as the plan did not require that this be the amount borrowed, or that if borrowed once it could be borrowed, paid back and borrowed again, and the money could be spent on other things aside from the indebtedness. He opined that the central issue was that the district was being extended and was continuing to divert property taxes for whatever activities occurred in the district. He thought the voters should know that the urban renewal district involved the use of tax moneys. Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office circulated copies of the two versions of Mr. Nicholson's statements and the council reviewed them. Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the urban renewal district would allow the agency to spend up to $250,000 on projects without council approval. He wished to indicate that in the statement on the ballot title. Mayor Torrey asked the legal counsel to respond. Mr. Lidz said the issues in the question were clear. The fact that the ordinance established maximum indebtedness was significant and the issues that Mr. Nicholson discussed were well-described in the summary. He questioned the use of the word ~divert," noting it was in both versions. He stated that the opinion of the City Attorney was that the connotation of the word was not neutral. He added that diversion implied that there was an existing stream of revenue that was being diverted when, in fact, a new stream of revenue was being created through the new development. Mr. Lidz addressed the issue of the $250,000. He averred that, as written, it was more accurate as the council would have already approved the expenditure within a budget and questioned whether the council needed to approve particular projects. Mayor Torrey recommended that the council president submit to the council a motion to amend. Mr. Nicholson suggested that the word ~diverted" be changed to the word "used" in version 2 to address the concerns of legal counsel. Councilor Kelly asked if the council could have a %ne-minute bullet round." Mayor Torrey responded that, given time constraints, it would be advisable to expedite the process and introduce a motion first. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt the second version of the appealed language with the question reading, as follows: %hould Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan be amended expanding renewal district, and increasing time property taxes used to pay for plan?" Councilor Bettman agreed that what was being aimed for was neutrality, but she believed the bulk of the text was not neutral. She said she would be recommending some changes when the council arrived at that point in the proceedings. She felt that the issue was ~about money" and this was not explicit in the statement. She believed the statement read ~like a commercial for everything that was good about urban renewal." She commented that she wished to propose to amend the text so that the word %timulating" would be replaced by %ubsidizing." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 2 Special Meeting Councilor Taylor averred that the word ;;diversion" was appropriate. She felt the language was not neutral and that it gave the impression that the City was creating money. She said she would support the motion. Councilor Kelly expressed discomfort at the statement in the second version. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to vote on the question and the statement in the ballot title separately. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to change the wording of the question, as fol- lows: .. increasing time property taxes used to pay ~or p,an projects. Councilor Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Pap6 asked legal counsel if the proposed version was a radical change from the version crafted by the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Lidz said the question to the council was whether it considered it more important to call out the maximum indebtedness or the increase in time that property tax dollars would be used in the ballot title question, given that it had a 20-word limit. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to substitute the version produced by staff and the legal counsel. Mayor Torrey read the question from the substitute motion, as follows: %hould Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan be amended to expand renewal area, establish maximum indebtedness amount, and increase time for projects. Councilor Kelly opined it was disingenuous not to include the phrase ~property taxes" in the question on a measure that did affect it. He opposed the motion on this basis, adding that with only 20 words it was paramount to choose the most important parts. Councilor Bettman could not support the motion. She asserted it was not clear what the voters were getting. She said the fact that property taxes were being used to pay for the projects in the plan and that the timeline for repayment was being expanded should be highlighted. Councilor Solomon commented that the words ~property taxes" appeared in the statement. She agreed with legal counsel that it came down to what should be called out within the 20-word limit. She supported the motion. Councilor Taylor felt, with limited words, the focus should be on what was most important. She opined that the most important were the time for repayment and the use of property taxes. She conveyed her opposition to the motion as it stood. Councilor Pap~ offered the following as a friendly amendment: %hould Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan r, ..... ~ ,^ .............. expand renewal area, establish maximum indebtedness,,,,,,,,,,,,,* and increase time property taxes are used for pro- jects.'' MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 3 Special Meeting Councilor Poling accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Bettman asked if there was significance to removing the language ~amended to." Mr. Lidz responded that, while he felt it significant, he did not think there was legal significance nor did he think that it would invalidate the language. Councilor Bettman offered the following as a friendly amendment: ~... establish max/mum $34.8 million of indebtedness..." Mr. Lidz advised the council that the plan did not establish that indebtedness. Councilor Pap~ did not accept the friendly amendment. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Councilor Pap~ said the number amount was more appropriately placed in the statement. Councilor Taylor said she would likely vote for the amendment, but that she wished there was assurance that the amount would be included in the statement. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Solomon was excused. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute the word %timulat- ing" with the word %ubsidizing" in the statement from version 2, as submitted by Mr. Nicholson. Councilor Kelly opined that neither %timulating" nor %ubsidizing" were neutral. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Lidz said the statement could be no longer than 175 words. Mr. Nicholson asked for and received permission to speak. He felt the amount of the maximum indebted- ness could not be included as there was already existing debt. Councilor Pap~ agreed with Councilor Kelly regarding the aforementioned two words. Councilor Pap~ said property taxes were not being diverted in entirety. He stressed that the amount in question was an incremental amount and without such a district the increase in property value which would increase the property tax revenue would not be realized. Councilor Taylor opined that the word %ubsidize" was %lear and honest." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 4 Special Meeting Councilor Meisner said he was also not enthusiastic for using either "subsidize" or "stimulate" in the statement. He noted he would be interested in amending the statement to strike the word "diverted" in the last line. Councilor Bettman agreed the word "diverted" should be changed to conform to the question. She reiterated that the word "subsidize" in lieu of the word "stimulate" was most appropriate. She asserted that Mr. Nicholson had left intact most of the text provided by legal staff. Councilor Taylor commented that the City subsidized things "all the time" and citizens knew it. She agreed with Councilor Bettman, that the statement as submitted by legal counsel was biased. Councilor Meisner said he would not support the amendment as it read. He suggested striking the word "stimulating" altogether and not editorializing on which word to use. Mayor Torrey called for a vote on Councilor Bettman's motion to substitute the word "subsidizing" for the word "stimulating." The vote on the motion was 3:3 tie; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in favor and councilors Poling, Pap~, and Meisner voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted against the motion and the motion failed on a final vote of 4:3. Councilor Meisner, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the statement in version 2, as submitted by Mr. Nicholson, by striking the word "stimulating" in line 4, adding the word "incremental" between the words "that" and "property" in the next to the last line, changing the word "diverted" to "used" in the same line, and correcting the spelling of ordi- nance in the last line. Councilor Bettman did not think the word "incremental" was necessary as the wording did not quantify anything else in the text. Councilor Bettman asked what the true number for maximum indebtedness would be. Mr. Taylor responded that he did not have the answer before him. Councilor Bettman asked him to call City staff Sue Cutsogeorge or Mike Sullivan and ask about this. Mayor Torrey asked the council if it wished to adjourn until this number could be determined. He noted that this was not the issue that had been appealed by Mr. Nicholson and the inclusion of the amount had not been recommended by legal counsel. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to consider the addition of the word "incremental" separately from the rest of the body of Councilor Meisner's motion. The motion failed, 4:2; Councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Nicholson requested, once again, to address the council. Mayor Torrey granted the request. Mr. Nicholson asserted that the amended text, as offered in Councilor Meisner's motion, was not true. He alleged there were no incremental taxes as there was only incremental value and also the establishment of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 5 Special Meeting maximum indebtedness meant this maximum could be incurred whether or not there was an increment. In that case, he declared it would have to be repaid even if there were no proceeds from the increment. Mr. Lidz commented that the issues raised were far enough beyond the appeal that he could not respond. He stressed that nothing raised in the appeal required the council to address these issues at this time, as the only thing the council was mandated to do was to adopt the ballot title. He underscored that this did not affect the substance of the revisions or amendments to the Urban Renewal Plan. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Lidz stated emphatically that it would not be incorrect to say in the text "incremental property taxes." Mr. Taylor asked Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge to speak to what the ordinance provided in terms of maximum indebtedness and the caveats explained within the text of section 1300. He underscored that he was trying to avoid having this appeal of the language become a debate of the ordinance. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the ordinance set the maximum indebtedness at $34.8 million. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that there was existing indebtedness in the amount of $3,030,000, used to purchase the Chiquita site. She added that it was not included in the maximum indebtedness. Councilor Kelly asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to speak to the concept of incremental property taxes. Ms. Cutsogeorge stated that, while it may be true that there was no definition of incremental property taxes in the urban renewal statutes, it was the concept upon which urban renewal was based. She felt the use of those words was not inaccurate. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to substitute "of $34.8 million" for "amount" in the third to the last line of the statement. The maker and the second for the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to strike the word "incremental" from the proposed amended text. Councilor Meisner declined to accept the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey stated that, in the face of a tie, he intended to vote for the motion. He commented that he would have been hard-pressed to support the motion had the word "increment" been stricken. He said the intent of the ballot title was to ensure the public knew what was happening, which was that there was a base of tax on the property in question, the amount above the base was the increment, and the tax increment was what would generate the revenue. As such, he felt it imperative to retain this word. Councilor Meisner made a friendly amendment to his motion, reworded slightly by legal counsel, to substitute the words "incremental value are used" for the words "are diverted" in the next to the last line of the statement. Councilor Poling accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed, 5:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 6 Special Meeting Councilor Kelly noted that the original version of the statement had, in the fourth line, indicated that the major changes would include "revising and expanding the plan's list of project activities" but in the version before the council the words "revising and" had been excluded. He wished to add them back to the text. He also wished to clarify that the plan called for all manner of connections to the downtown area. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Papd, moved to add "revising and" before "ex- panding'' in line 4 of the statement text and to change the wording in line 6 so that it read, as follows: b ildi d th ' " ~^~ * ....... * connections between wntown, "... u ng new ....... ,~,~...,,,~ o e river... Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to include the words "including roads" in the latter change. Councilor Kelly declined and offered an alternative friendly amendment, as follows: ,,... r,..a~,~v ~**~***~ including roads te~,~,,...~,~,* bicycle and pedestrian connections.. ." Mr. Taylor noted that legal staff had tried to keep the text relatively simple. Councilor Taylor felt roads should be included in the text as building roads was part of the plan. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to substitute "building new transportation projects" for the word "roads." Councilor Kelly and Councilor Papd accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the statement from version 2 as submitted by Mr. Nicholson, now proposed to read, as follows: "Ordinance No. 20313 amends the urban renewal plan for the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. Major changes include: adding approximately 30 acres to the Riverfront renewal district, including the area immediately to the south and west of Franklin between Hilyard and Pearl, revising and expanding the plan's list of project activities to includeo~*:~"~.,,~,~.~*:-~ development activities near the new federal courthouse and the area occupied by EWEB (should EWEB relocate), building new re, ads transporta- tion projects to connect downtown, the river and the university, authorizing the Urban Renewal Agency to provide loans to property owners wishing to develop or redevelop property within the renewal area, requiring the City Council (acting as the Urban Renewal Agency) to approve all projects in excess of $250,000, establishing maximum indebtedness amount of $34.8 million, and extending the time that property taxes' are diveged incremental value are used to pay for administration of, debts of, or projects in the district. A "yes" vote approves ©rdenance Ordinance No. 20313 and its plan amend- ments.'' The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the revised language of the Ballot Title in its entirety. The City Council by a unanimous vote, 6:0, approved the amended language of the Ballot Title for the referendum on the ordinance amending the Riverfront Urban Renewal District plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 7 Special Meeting The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 8 Special Meeting