HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 02/25/04 WS MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room-City Hall
February 25, 2004
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor
Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon.
His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order.
A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Eugene Police Building and Civic Center Visioning
City Manager Dennis Taylor said this was an opportunity to provide information on work done to determine
the feasibility of a Eugene Police Building and Civic Center and also to report on the citizens' visioning
charette that had been held. He asked Glen Svendsen, Division Manager of Central Services Facilities, to
speak about it.
Mayor Torrey noted that two members of the design committee were present.
Mr. Svendsen introduced Eric Gunderson, who also helped in the visioning process. He explained that, as a
result of City Council direction to staff, staff had worked with Mr. Gunderson and the local chapter of the
American Institute of Architects to conduct a design charette in late January. He noted that the Mayor had
appointed an ad hoc Civic Facilities Visioning Committee with representatives from a number of agencies
and public interests. He said the first meeting of that committee had been held.
Mr. Gunderson called the charette a %rief, but intense exploration of ideas" for a Eugene Civic Center. He
shared the definition of a Civic Center that came out of the work of the charette, as follows:
~The term Civic Center is used to describe a place where City employees go to work, where citi
zens come to conduct the business of government, obtain services, seek justice, and participate in
democracy. It is a place of art, free speech, public debate, and an expression of the spirit of Eugene.
It's a place for events of public ceremony, enjoyment, and a fundamental part of what makes us a
community. It is its nature to be at the heart of things, with connections to commercial, governmen-
tal, social, spiritual, and cultural elements to our City. It's a desirable place to go which is safe and
accessible to everyone."
Mr. Gunderson said the charette then worked with the downtown space planning advisory team to identify
rough quantities of space for the different elements of the project. He provided an overview of the charette
process, noting that it had been attended by 75 people, who had been divided into ten teams. A description
of the design charette and summary of findings was presented by Mr. Gunderson
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 1
Work Session
Mr. Svendsen reported on the first ad hoc committee meeting. He provided copies of the work program for
the committee. He noted the timeline was tight, as the committee was to present its work to the council by
the first of June and that the work was to represent an integrated approach among the agencies to future
Civic Center development downtown. He stated that staff would come before the council in late April with
recommendations for initial financing options for the facilities.
Mayor Torrey thanked Mr. Gunderson and staff members for their efforts. He related that he attended the
charette and there had been %xcitement and enthusiasm in the room."
Mr. Kelly commented that he was impressed with the number of ideas that were presented at the charette
and the work that had been done. He opined that the key element missing from the bulleted list in the
Agenda Item Summary (ALS) was meeting rooms for both the staff and public.
In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Svendsen said the Civic Center, as envisioned, would
consolidate City services to the greatest extent possible. He specifically noted that the Planning and
Development Department (PDD) was planned to be moved out of the Atrium Building and into such a
center.
Mr. Kelly felt the block bordered by 8th Avenue, Broadway Street, and High Street (the ~IHOP block") had
potential. He liked both the suggestions that another City building be built across 8th Avenue from the
current City Hall or that it be placed on the %utterfly" lot site, located on the northwest comer of 8th
Avenue and Oak Street. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that the idea of combining the Police
Department structure and the City Hall structure had been ~dismissed" by the design charette.
In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Svendsen said the key reason such a combination had not
been considered was the changes in seismic codes. He stated that the Police Department had different
seismic code requirements from other structures.
Ms. Nathanson thought it out of order to consider financing options prior to receiving final recommendations
on the Civic Center. Mr. Svendsen responded that the initial motivation for doing so was to attain a level of
understanding of the potential financing prior to undertaking the project. Ms. Nathanson advocated for
keeping the discussion of financing to a general level. She reiterated that specific and detailed financing
would be premature at that point.
Mr. Taylor stated that the next meeting of the committee would focus specifically on opportunities for
cooperation with the State, the school districts, and County, federal, and City governments. He related that
the committee had been asked to talk about the range of financial options or tools that were available in the
hope that there would be a convergence between what is possible and different ways the tools would be used
in different scenarios. He said it was hoped that the committee would be able to come back with more
refined information.
Ms. Solomon asked what the Government Service Administration was going to do with the old courthouse.
Mayor Torrey related that the government had said it would continue to use the entire building with the
possible exception of some of the courtrooms.
Mr. Poling said he was impressed with the horseshoe design and that the Great Streets idea looked good to
him. He supported combining City functions in the Civic Center. He felt having one central area would
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 2
Work Session
make it easier to conduct City business. He agreed that the police department should be separate for
security reasons. He opined that, unlikely as it seemed, should someone decide to attack the Eugene City
government it would be good to have safety services in a separate facility.
Mr. Poling approved of making the Civic Center a mixed-use area, adding a coffee shop and other amenities.
He called it a ;;great vision."
Mr. Meisner agreed with everything that had been said thus far. He concurred with concerns expressed by
Ms. Nathanson on financing and sequencing. He supported the development of a Civic Center that could
consolidate City services. He said this would free some downtown properties which could then be sold and
placed back on tax rolls.
Mr. Meisner was not interested in developing the ;;IHOP block," as it ;;presented more questions than
answers."
Mr. Meisner supported the idea of the center being a mixed-use area. He noted that the coffee and book
shops in the library had been more successful than had been predicted. He thought the Police Department
should be part of the complex.
Mr. Meisner asked if there had been discussion on how the transition would be conducted. Mr. Taylor
responded that the transition presented ;;intriguing issues." He thought vacated courtrooms could provide
temporary housing.
In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Svendsen explained that it was planned that the police
facility would be built first and the police would remain in the City Hall complex until it was completed.
Mr. Meisner reiterated that, as the process unfolded, he hoped costs would be identified and transitions costs
would be included.
Ms. Bettman commended the charette, calling it a successful and inclusive process. She wanted the
inclusive process to continue. She expressed disappointment that the committee had been formed and she
had no knowledge of it prior to seeing the information in the council packet. She requested a list of
committee members. She said she hoped it was an inclusive list and, if not, she hoped the council would
have the opportunity to make it more inclusive of a broader range of the public.
Ms. Bettman favored a combined facility, or if this was not possible, an associated facility. She supported
the horseshoe design for the building, as it would help people and departments to mix and would create a
central courtyard.
Ms. Bettman recommended that staff bring a rough sense of costs before the council as it becomes known.
She concurred with Mr. Meisner that transitional costs should be included.
Ms. Bettman expressed apprehension at the inclusion of commercial space that would compete with other
downtown businesses. She liked the traditional idea of having the Civic Center be the seat of government.
Mr. Pap~ conveyed his appreciation for the process. He supported holding a work session to educate the
council on financing potentialities.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 3
Work Session
Mr. Papd said he had seen several joint county/city facilities in other cities and thought a partnership would
be beneficial for both parties.
Mr. Pap6 asked if the Sears Building site had been considered. Mr. Svendsen said the site had been looked
into, but there were concerns that this would displace the possibility of the Oregon Research Institute's
redevelopment of the site, which was projected to bring good jobs to the downtown area. He added that the
west side of the downtown area was felt to be more of a commercial area.
In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Gunderson said a building shared between City services and
the Police Department would have to be four stories tall.
Ms. Taylor asked who appointed the ad hoc committee members and who they were. Mr. Svendsen replied
that the Mayor appointed the 15 committee members. Mayor Torrey said all of the committee participants
were people who applied to be on committees in the City, many of whom had applied to the Police
Commission and some who had applied to the Planning Commission. Mr. Svendsen added that half were
public agency members such as George Russell, superintendent of the School District 4J, and a representa-
tive of the Lane County Sheriff's Office (LCSO).
Ms. Taylor asserted that the recommendation of the committee should not supercede the recommendation of
the charette.
Ms. Taylor agreed that it was premature to discuss financing scenarios.
Ms. Taylor also felt that the City should not build commercial space that could compete against other
downtown businesses.
Mayor Torrey called the visioning process the ~right thing to be doing." He felt, given that the courthouse
was going to be built, the timing was right. He noted that the United States Forest Service was rumored to
be moving to the City of Springfield and would be vacating office space in the Federal Building.
Regarding the membership of the ad hoc committee, Mayor Torrey related that he had thought the
membership was a representative selection. He asked councilors with concerns about the membership to
discuss them with him.
Mr. Kelly said he would have preferred that the City Council appoint the committee. He emphasized that
the committee should represent the diversity of the community.
Mr. Kelly recommended surveying the public in order to get a sense of their awareness of any issues around
downtown City facilities and whether there was support for a possible future bond measure.
Mr. Kelly asked staff to look into the feasibility of a privatized lease-to-own facility, wherein a private
developer would build the facility and the City would lease it and eventually pay for it.
Ms. Taylor urged staff to refrain from placing a bond on the ballot in the fall.
Ms. Taylor noted that there had been a strong interest in saving the City Hall building and upgrading it. She
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 4
Work Session
asked staff to address this.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 5
Work Session
B. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan
Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council
Bill 4863, an ordinance adopting an amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District
Plan.
Mr. Taylor said he hoped the council could adopt the ordinance as it had been discussed for over a year. He
stated that Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, would
provide any new information on the item.
Mr. Weinman said this item was a final action on amendments to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District
Plan, an update begun in January 2003, at the behest of the City Council, as one of the tools to implement
the Downtown Vision. He stressed that the plan precisely reflected the direction provided by the council
during previous work sessions. He added that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the
amendments. He noted that a requirement for an advisory committee had been incorporated into the
amendments at the council's request.
Mr. Weinman reported that, as per State law, all affected taxing jurisdictions were notified. Only Lane
County responded. He related that staff had met with the Board of County Commissioners and, though the
commisioners had no comments to the council, they did forward it to the County Economic Development
Committee for its review and consideration. He noted the committee asked the council consider expansion
of the district to include the County Annex block and to add projects for a public health building, a joint
governmental facility-site, and a parking facility. He noted that staff was not recommending the expansion
at this point, but this would not preclude future expansion. He further stated that the other activities could
be assisted through the plan, as proposed.
Mr. Weinman stated that there had been much discussion of locating a hospital on property owned by the
Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). He said the portion of the property that was the focus of the
discussion was not part of the district. He asserted the property could be instrumental to the redevelopment
of the overall EWEB property and, therefore, the use of urban renewal funds to help site a hospital was
worthy of the council's consideration. He conveyed staff's recommendation that the property be included,
by amendment, in the motion under current consideration.
Ms. Bettman was in favor of the inclusion of the EWEB property.
Ms. Bettman conveyed her concerns that an urban renewal district would take funding away from other
necessary public services. She felt it was not a wise fiscal decision, as she alleged the money would be
"taken from the school districts." She asked staff to determine what impact urban renewal districts had on
school funding across the State. Charles Kupper, urban renewal consultant for the City of Eugene,
responded that he did not know what the percentage of funds were in incremental values across the State.
He explained that, should all urban renewal districts end, the additional value would be made available to
local school districts. He clarified, however, that the school funding process was such that the State
backfilled the per student cost for the school districts in the case where property tax revenue was diverted
into urban renewal. He added that, should the money become less encumbered, the State would not need to
spend it on education; it could spend it on other projects such as bridges, etc.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 6
Work Session
Mr. Pap6 noted that the council had agreed to site the hospital within the preferred area. He stated that the
urban renewal district was a working tool to help do so.
Mr. Weinman asked that a motion to amend the motion to remove the "Good Times lot" parcel and add
others to the urban renewal district be made. He explained that the removal of the property was because the
addition of properties had made the total acreage exceed the limit.
Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, movedto amend themotionto removetaxlot
1702211104900, and to add tax lot numbers 1703304408500, 1702393302700,
1703322200300,1703311100100,1703311100300,1703322200400, and
1703322200401.
Ms. Taylor objected to voting on such a change without engaging the public.
Ms. Bettman supported the amendment to include the EWEB site.
In response to a concern expressed by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Weinman explained that the criterion for picking
the "Good Times lot" parcel for removal was that it was the smallest lot. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City
could choose to remove a different parcel, as the location of the parcel in question was relatively strategic.
Mayor Torrey asked how long it would take to make an adjustment to the district. Mr. Weinman replied
that, while it would only take several months, it involved approximately $12,000 in noticing costs.
Mr. Taylor clarified that the opportunity to work with the EWEB site had only just arisen over the weekend
and this was the rationale for the revised recommendation. He recommended accepting the amendment as it
would make it easier to do the work that was underway.
In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, City Attorney Glenn Klein recommended the council act on
the amendment, pose any other intended motions to amend to the body, give staff direction as to which lots
the council would prefer to remove, and then postpone final action until the next meeting.
Mr. Meisner said he would support the amendment as the parcel in question was only the eastern half of a
parking lot.
The amendment passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
Ms. Taylor asserted that urban renewal districts were "much misused." She alleged that the urban renewal
district was based on faulty premises, the premise that it was a blighted area and the premise that it was
necessary to protect the health and welfare of the community. She opined it was too much freedom to spend
the public's money without adequate supervision. She felt urban renewal had contributed to the degradation
of the downtown area.
Ms. Nathanson conveyed her intention to support the motion.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved Attachment J to amend the plan to replace
600(a)(1) public improvements with the following amended language, and to amend the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 7
Work Session
Riverfront Urban Renewal District plan to replace section 600 (6) public parking and
public transportation facilities with the following language, and to add a new section
under section 600 called section (8) funding projects that reads:
"Riverfront Urban Renewal District revenue shall not be spent on projects or activities
for which existing sources of funding are traditionally used, such as assessments, fees,
systems development charges, or to pay expenses incurred by or for another jurisdiction
such as State, County, or federal government."
Ms. Bettman stated that her amendment would remove the ability for urban renewal funds to be diverted to
build roads. She reiterated that there were other funding sources to build roads and that the projects in the
district should be prioritized over projects such as the one proposed to extend Chad Drive to Game Farm
Road.
Mr. Kelly expressed his support for the concept of urban renewal. He said, however, that he would rather
be strategic with the use of funds. He agreed that there were other sources for road building.
Mr. Meisner supported the principle behind the section that referred to curb and sidewalk improvements. He
noted that, should the hospital be sited in the area, a public parking structure would have to be built. He
commented that the property most often mentioned as a possibility for such a structure was the site of the
old State motor pool, which was not included in the district. He felt the district may have to be redrawn to
accommodate it.
In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Klein stated that the plan language intended to authorize
road projects would have been sections 600(a)(1) and (6). He affirmed that without any language explicitly
authorizing streets, it was therefore construed that there was a prohibition on using funds in that way.
Mr. Pap6 shared Mr. Meisner's concern that a prohibition on using urban renewal funds for road projects
could pose difficulties later on.
Ms. Bettman asserted there was policy language that stated that the urban renewal district could fund any
project that was in the best interest of the project. She said that under her proposed amendment language a
discussion would have to be held in an open session in order for the urban renewal district funds to be used
for road projects. She felt the urban renewal district, without this amendment, would take away the
incentive for the federal or State funds to be used for road projects.
Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, stated that an amendment that would eliminate a
requirement for matching funds would be a substantial amendment and not a "Type 1" amendment. As
such, it would not need to be noticed to every single property owner, but would be required to pass through
the Planning Commission and to give notice to the other taxing districts to hold the public hearings. He said
this would take approximately three months.
Mayor Torrey stressed that locating a hospital on the EWEB site would raise a plethora of transportation
issues. As such, he urged the council not to make it "harder on transportation."
Mr. Taylor concurred with the Mayor.
The motion ended in a tie, 4:4; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 8
Work Session
voting in favor; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pap6, and Ms. Nathanson voting in op-
position. Mayor Torrey voted against the amendment and the motion failed on a final
vote of 5:4.
Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to postpone to March 8 and direct staff
to analyze other lots that may be removed as a substitute for the "Good Times" lot.
Mr. Klein noted that Ms. Bettman had another motion to amend and it would be better to address all
amendments prior to moving to postpone.
Ms. Nathanson withdrew her motion.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the ordinance to provide for
electoral approval by adding the following at the end of the ordinance title:
"And making section (1) of this ordinance effective only upon approval of the electors
of the City and adding section (3) and (4) as follows:
(3) The City Council orders a City election to be held in the City of Eugene, Oregon, on
November 2, 2004, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 254 of the Oregon
Revised Statutes for the purpose of referring to the qualified electors the question of
whether section (1) of this ordinance shall become effective, and the ballots shall be
counted and tabulated and the results certified as provided by law.
(4) Section (1) of this ordinance shall become effective only upon approval of the elec-
tors of the City at the election held pursuant to section (3) of this ordinance.
Ms. Bettman affirmed that there had been public input into the plan, but she asserted that the actual
financial impacts of the plan were not explicitly explained. She supported placing it on a ballot so the voters
could decide whether to spend this money on an urban renewal district.
The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in favor.
Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to postpone to March 8, 2004, and
to direct staff to analyze other lots that may be removed as a substitute for the "Good
Times" lot.
Mr. Meisner offered a friendly amendment to change the language so that it directed to staff to analyze other
lots that may be removed or added. The maker and the second of the motion accepted the friendly
amendment.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 9
Work Session
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
M: 120041Central Services DepartmentlCity Councillcc04021 lml. wpd
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 10
Work Session