Current
Issues
 The Chamber’s Local
Government Affairs Council identifies issues that impact
business and the broader community where our involvement
on your behalf is necessary.
April 2008
Planning
Commission Approves Downtown Code Amendments
Supporters
of downtown revitalization turned out in large numbers at
a recent Eugene Planning Commission public hearing on
proposed development code amendments. And on Monday, April
28, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of
the amendments. They will now be sent to the City Council
where a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for June
16.
Several
members of the Chamber’s Local Government Affairs
Council were among those who spoke in favor of the
amendments at the planning commission hearing. They
explained how the code amendments would remove some of the
barriers that have stood in the way of attracting new
investment, new projects, or even potential redevelopment
in downtown Eugene. For example, they explained how the
code amendments would correct problems caused by the
current code that require development standards that far
exceed the market and economic realities for a city the
size of Eugene. And, they outlined some of the unintended
consequences stemming from the current code that force
buildings to be taller than their practical need or put
restrictive limits on parking. Both of which can make
building new projects too expensive to pencil out in our
market.
Other
supporters of the code amendments stressed the amendments
were one of many incremental steps that moves the
community closer to enhancing those things that are
already good about downtown while at the same time
fostering revitalization.
Additional
information about the downtown code amendments can be
found at www.eugene-or.gov/dtzoning
Or, contact Terry Connolly at the Chamber, terryc@eugenechamber.com,
or 242-2353.
Downtown
Code Amendments Scheduled for April 15 Planning Commission
Public Hearing
Supporters
of downtown revitalization will have an important
opportunity on April 15 to comment on several proposed
development code amendments for downtown Eugene. If
adopted these code amendments would remove several
barriers that have been an impediment to development in
downtown since 2001 when current code requirements took
effect (over the objections of the Eugene Area Chamber of
Commerce and others in the community).
The
proposed amendments would correct problems caused by the
current code that require development standards that far
exceed the market and economic realities for a city the
size of Eugene. For example, code requirements that limit
parking and/or require structured parking or force new
buildings to be taller than their practical need makes new
development too expensive to pencil out in this market.
That’s why the proposed code amendments are important.
They will better align development regulations with the
market and economic conditions in Eugene. Which in turn
should help stimulate new development leading to more
revitalization in downtown.
Additional
information about the downtown code amendments and April
15 public hearing can be found at www.eugene-or.gov/dtzoning.
The public hearing will begin at 6:00pm but the location
has yet to be determined. Contact Terry Connolly at the
Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, 242-2353, or via
email, for more information.
December
2007
Chamber Representing Businesses on Many Government
Affairs Issues
City
Council Considering General Obligation Bond to Repair
Streets
The Eugene City Council will decide in February on
whether or not to place an $81 million bond measure on
the ballot in May 2008. The short-term general
obligation bonds would be used to pay for a significant
portion of the estimated $170 million backlog in road
repairs in Eugene.
The concept of using general obligation bonds or a
capital levy is an approach the Chamber has been
advocating for several years to pay for street repairs,
along with other methods such as greater use of existing
general funds from within the city’s budget. In studying
a variety of means to pay for street maintenance the
Chamber’s Local Government Affairs Council has
consistently concluded that using bonds or a capital
levy is one way to ensure accountability in how the city
goes about fixing streets. Bonds must be applied to
specific projects identified in a ballot measure. The
city council does not have the discretion to use the
revenue for other purposes.
At this
time the specific details on which repair or
reconstruction projects would be contained in the bond
measure have not been identified. That information will
be needed in order for the Chamber to take a formal
position on the measure. And the Chamber is certainly
open to meeting with city officials to discuss those
details. One thing for certain that the Chamber would
insist upon as a condition of support is for the bond
measure to be dedicated curb-to-curb street repair
needs. That is where the problem is. The bond should not
be used on projects like building new bike paths,
traffic calming, transit lanes, or urban forestry to
landscape streets. Nor should there be excessive
administrative or engineering costs contained in the
bond.
City
Hall Complex
Council discussion of a bond measure to fix streets
comes just two weeks after a wise decision by the city
council to wait until 2010 before considering whether or
not to ask voters to approve a bond measure to build a
new city hall. Some councilors felt it was important to
remove city hall as a potential ballot measure in 2008
in order to clearly demonstrate to the public their
priority was to focus on repairing the streets. Others
felt there didn’t seem to be sufficient public support
to try for a city hall bond measure next year.
Buildable Land Supplies
Another important action by the city council also took
place in the past two weeks. This came in the form of
giving direction to city planning staff to bring back a
scope of work for doing a buildable lands inventory for
commercial, industrial, and residential land. While
complying with House Bill 3337 mandates doing the
inventory analysis for residential land, a majority of
councilors felt it would be logical to do commercial and
industrial lands at the same time. Actually, half the
members of the city council have been suggesting this
inventory work for over a year. And the Chamber has been
advocating for this even longer. The Planning Commission
and others have also been recommending this. As
previously stated, this council action (supported by
Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Poling, Chris Pryor and
Jennifer Solomon) only gives direction to bring back a
scope of work for doing the inventory work. It will
still require a separate city council decision to
actually do the inventory. Nevertheless, this was an
encouraging action by the city council.
Water Quality Waterside Protection Ordinance
On a related land supply issue, people who own
developable commercial, industrial or residential
properties in Eugene should pay close attention to a
proposed ordinance that would establish new setbacks on
approximately 16 miles of waterways inside the urban
growth boundaries. The setbacks would be 25 feet from
top of bank on both sides of a waterway.
A map of the identified waterways and details on the
ordinance can be found on this link from the City of
Eugene Public Works website:
http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1759&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=0&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true
While the number of waterways designated for protection
are significantly fewer than in the proposal that first
surfaced in 2006, the Chamber still has concerns about
the scope and purpose of this ordinance. Chief among
them will be the degree to which this ordinance could
further reduce the supply of buildable lands inside the
urban growth boundary. And, whether or not the
regulations could limit or eliminate the potential for
any businesses located in Eugene to expand their
facilities if their property is adjacent to one of the
waterways designated for protection.
The
Eugene Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
this ordinance on Tuesday, Jan. 15, at 6:00pm in the
Sloat Room of the Atrium Building located at 99 West
10th Avenue.
For
additional information about any of these government
affairs items please contact Terry Connolly, 242-2353 or
terryc@eugenechamber.com
July
2007
Legislative
Session Dealt With Issues Important to Local Businesses and
Economy
Land use
and transportation were at the top of the Chamber's
legislative agenda when the 2007 Oregon Legislature
convened in January. And now that the legislative session
has ended here's a look at how we fared on those issues as
well as other bills that came up during the course of the
session.
Land use,
especially as it pertains to buildable land supplies
needed to support the local economy, job growth, and
affordable housing, produced one of the most
important bills of the session from a local perspective.
House Bill 3337 creates separate urban growth boundaries
for
Eugene
and
Springfield
and requires each city to do a buildable land inventory
analysis within two years in order to demonstrate whether
or not they are in compliance with state requirements.
This is not unlike what the Chamber has been urging the
Eugene City Council to do for several years. So the
Chamber was very much in support of this bill at the
Capitol in
Salem
. This bill should lead to better local planning decisions
with respect to future public facilities and
infrastructure, housing and employment. The Chamber told
legislators there is an economic development value to
align housing and jobs. The ability of employers to
attract and retain workers can be influenced by where
their workforce lives or can afford to live.
HB 3337
was approved overwhelmingly by the House, 50-5, and the
Senate, 25-2, and signed into law by Governor Ted
Kulongoski on June 27.
Transportation,
especially as it pertains to funding for new capacity and
the operation and maintenance of our transportation
system, didn't fare as well as we hoped. Read
the full article here.
Back
to Top
May 2007
Chamber
Disappointed by City Council Decision to Increase Gas Tax
to 8 Cents
Last night
(5/29) the Eugene City Council voted 6-2 to increase
Eugene
's local gas tax from 5 cents to 8 cents, making it the highest
local gas tax of any city in
Oregon
. The Eugene Chamber had previously testified in opposition
to this increase.
The Chamber
opposed this tax increase not because we don't understand the need
to maintain essential infrastructure like city
streets. We do. In fact, the Chamber was the only organization
to support the current tax rate of five cents specifically
because we knew there was a need for additional revenue to pay
for street maintenance. Rather, one reason we opposed
the increase now is because a five cent difference in
tax much more so than the current two cent difference between
Eugene
's tax and all other local gas taxes in
Lane
County
would put
Eugene
dealers at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
Another major
reason why we opposed the tax increase has to do with timing and
unintended consequences of increasing the tax before attempting
other options under consideration by the city council. The most
noteworthy being a capital local option levy to pay for a good
portion of the city's backlog in street repair projects. The
Chamber is willing to support such a levy but warned
the city council that securing voter approval would become
extremely difficult, maybe impossible, if they enacted any
new fees or taxes before putting a measure on the ballot.
Timing of the
increase is also unfortunate because there are signals that
Lane
County
might soon explore the notion of a countywide gas tax. A
countywide tax would level the playing field for
Eugene
stations thus alleviating one of their major concerns. While
Eugene
's action doesn't pre-empt a countywide gas tax it does
make pursuing a countywide tax more difficult.
In addition to
the gas tax increase and potential capital local option levy,
the city council is also looking at a new street utility fee
based on parking spaces and a street and bike path lighting fee.
For additional
information contact Terry Connolly, 242-2353 or terryc@eugenechamber.com
Councilors Mike
Clark and George Poling were the two who voted against the tax
increase.
Read
earlier article on this same topic.
City
Council Action on West Broadway Proposals a Positive Step for
Downtown
There
is still much work still to do and many decisions still
to be made before a project breaks ground but the Eugene
City Council's action on Monday night to move
forward with concept proposals for redeveloping West
Broadway is a good thing. It's the type of action that
could help stimulate further investment into downtown
Eugene. The Chamber applauds the city council for taking
this action.
Thanks
to a motion crafted by Councilor Alan Zelenka, the
majority of councilors agreed to take additional steps
on a proposal which takes the best aspects of the KWG
and Beam concepts and ensures plenty of public
involvement leading up to future decisions on making the
proposals become reality. Councilor Zelenka's motion was
supported by Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Mike
Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor and
George Poling.
The
Chamber will continue to remain actively engaged with
the city council and other community groups during this
next phase of the West Broadway redevelopment process.
City Council to
Consider Capital Local Option Levy and Other Revenue Options to Pay
for Street Repairs
A subcommittee of Eugene's City Council
is recommending a series of funding options, namely new fees and
taxes, to consider using to pay for a backlog in street repair work
and for the annual operation and maintenance of city streets. New
city estimates put the need at $170 million. The recommendations
will be presented to the full city council on May 23.
Included among the recommendations is a capital local option levy
dedicated to capital preservation projects. This is a concept not
too unlike the use of general obligation bonds that the Chamber has
advocated for as a responsible means to tackle a large portion of
the backlog in street maintenance. So in that sense the
recommendation has merit and the Chamber is willing to work with
city officials to help craft a measure which businesses and the
public could support at the ballot box. Such a measure could
potentially raise up to $10 million per year to pay for street
repair projects. Two advantages to this approach are the money
raised must be dedicated to specific projects and must be spent
within a specific period of time. Both add a measure of
accountability that is not evident in most of the other
recommendations.
While there are still details to work
out on a capital local option levy the Chamber urges the City
Council to try this approach first before enacting any other new
fees or taxes. Securing voter approval would be significantly more
difficult if other new fees or taxes have been enacted which would
be perceived by the public as fixing the street repair problems.
That is one reason why the Chamber is opposed to the proposed 3 cent
increase in Eugene's local gas tax, in addition to concerns about
placing Eugene dealers at a competitive disadvantage to all other
Lane County dealers.
Other funding options on the list include a utility fee based on
parking spaces. Here again there are many unknown details about how
the fees would be assessed or what the cost would be to administer
the program. It should be noted, however, that Eugene businesses
already pay stormwater user fees based on impervious surface space
of which much is parking.
A street and bike path lighting fee and 5% solid waste collection
fee surcharge are two other options included in the recommendation.
The Chamber recognizes there is a
problem in funding street operation and maintenance that needs to
dealt with which is why we believe it needs to be a city priority.
To that extent we appreciate the members of the council subcommittee
for rolling up their sleeves the past three months to work on this.
And, it should be pointed out that they did rule out a new payroll
tax to pay for street repairs. They also suggest additional dialogue
with Lane County to see if there are opportunities for equitable
countywide funding options. The Chamber encourages that type of
cooperation between the city and county.
Members of the council subcommittee included Chris Pryor, Bonny
Bettman, Alan Zelenka and Jennifer Solomon.
For additional information contact Terry Connolly at 242-2353 or by
e-mail
terryc@eugenechamber.com.
Back
to Top
April 2007
Chamber
Lends Support to Hospital Rezoning Request
The Eugene Area
Chamber of Commerce will lend its support to a request by
McKenzie
Willamette
Medical
Center
to secure land use approvals to construct a 148 bed
hospital in
North Eugene
. The Chamber’s Local Government Affairs Council has studied
this project, meeting with
McKenzie
Willamette
Medical
Center
staff and consultants several times over the past two years, to
understand their response to transportation and land use impacts
associated with the proposed project.
The Chamber’s
support for the project is based on the following:
- The
proposed project plays an important role in meeting the
present and future medical needs of the region.
- The
$234 million project means new investment, family wage jobs
and increased tax base for the area.
- State
and local land use laws provide an open and transparent
process with clear criteria for making changes to land use
plans. Companies who address the criteria have every
right to expect a Metro Plan Amendment and rezoning request
to be granted. In an environment of exceedingly low
inventories of land available for commercial development,
flexibility is needed to meet the needs of the community.
- The
Delta/Beltline Interchange is already in need of
improvement. However, there are no county or state
solutions in the pipeline. McKenzie-Willamette's investment
of $12.8 million is the only option on the table today to
improve the interchange and may stimulate a more
comprehensive fix to one of Lane
County’s most pressing transportation problems.
The Eugene
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this
application at 5pm on Tues. April 24, at Eugene
City Hall. Comments can also be sent to:
Eugene
Planning Commission
c/o
City of
Eugene
Planning Division
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene
,
OR
97401
Additional
information can be found at www.mckweb.com
Back
to Top
March 2007
Last
week's survey of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce
membership reveals strong opposition to the recent
decision by Lane County's Board of Commissioners to
enact a 1.1% personal and business income tax to
fund public safety services. Of the 309 responses
received, 60% opposed the decision to enact the
income tax. An even higher number, 72%, think the
income tax ordinance should be referred to the
voters.
And while the
income tax may not be popular the need to make
public safety a priority in Lane County was
clearly on the minds of those who responded as well.
When asked if they believe public safety is
important to creating a healthy local economy 72%
indicated it was "very important." Additionally, 75%
indicated the Lane County Board of Commissioners
should make public safety a "high priority."
Therein lies the
predicament for county officials. How do they pay
for an essential service like public safety which is
clearly important to Lane County businesses? And
meeting this challenge will become all the more
difficult given the prospect of losing federal
payments to once timber dependent counties.
However, the income
tax enacted by ordinance on February 21st is not
the solution to this problem. Even prior to the
decision to enact the income tax the Chamber
expressed concerns about the ordinance because it
was significantly different than the charter
amendment last fall which the Chamber supported.
Therefore, the Chamber is not opposing the effort to
repeal the income tax.
The Chamber and its
Local Government Affairs Council will, however, stay
focused on the ultimate objective which is to ensure
Lane County has a functioning public safety system.
As demonstrated by the survey results, public safety
is critically important to our ability and desire to
promote responsible economic development, business
success, and community quality of life. As the
referendum process plays out over the coming weeks
we'll continue to work with county officials to find
ways other than an income tax to address the our
public safety funding shortfall.
February 2007
Chamber to City Council: Don't
Increase Gas Tax
The Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce
spoke in opposition to a proposed 3 cent per gallon increase to
Eugene's local gas tax. The Eugene City Council considered this
tax increase at a public hearing on February 20. This
position is the product of the Chamber's Local Government
Affairs Council who carefully studied the tax increase proposal.
Unlike the current 5 cent per gallon gas tax which the city has
been using to catch up on the "backlog" of street repairs (a
responsible application of the tax revenue), the 3 cent increase
would be used to pay the annual costs for operating and
maintaining city streets. The Chamber believes the city should
first look to its general fund and reprioritize spending before
raising more taxes.
If enacted this 3-cent increase would give Eugene the highest
local gas tax in the state at 8 cents per gallon. It would also
mean Eugene's tax would be 5 cents higher than any other city in
Lane County and 8 cents higher than those portions of the county
where there is no local tax. This level of difference would
place Eugene gasoline dealers at a competitive disadvantage to
businesses outside the city limits.
The Chamber is also concerned about the timing in which the city
council is considering this increase. We recognize the magnitude
of the $110 million backlog in street repair work. And have told
the city council the Chamber would lead a campaign in support of
a bond measure or capital levy to address that problem. However,
increasing the gas before such a measure is sent to the voters
would confuse the public and likely doom any chance of winning
an election.
Timing is also a factor considering there has been legislation
introduced in Salem that would increase the state gas tax with a
portion being distributed back to cities for their street
operation and maintenance needs. The city council should wait to
see what happens in the Legislature this session before
increasing their local gas tax.
Finally, the Chamber urges the city council to be mindful of a
potential backlash if they increase the local gas tax. We sense
that at some point the local gas tax will reach a level where
the dealers or others in the community will pursue an initiative
petition to repeal Eugene's gas tax. So increasing the tax now
could put at risk money that is presently being collected and
used to repair city streets.
For additional information please contact Terry
Connolly via email or
call him at 242-2353.
Chamber Opposed to Parks System
Development Charges on Commercial and Industrial Development
The Chamber testified in opposition to new Parks System Development
Charges (SDCs) at the City Council's public hearing on February 20.
After thorough review of the proposed new fees by the Chamber's
Local Government Affairs Council, the committee determined that
unlike requiring system development charges on new development for
infrastructure such as roads or stormwater there is no connection
between commercial and industrial development to warrant parks SDCs.
Office buildings, clothing stores, clinics, hardware stores,
supermarkets, manufacturing plants, hair salons, restaurants, etc.,
etc., are uses that don't create a demand for parks. Therefore it
would be inappropriate to begin charging parks SDCs on
nonresidential development.
Adding thousands of dollars in parks SDCs to non-residential
development projects could prove to be a disincentive for business
growth and expansion of the kind that might otherwise help the city
achieve goals of more compact urban development, downtown
revitalization, and efforts aimed at redevelopment. So the city
council needs to be mindful of those unintended consequences.
The Chamber also objects to these parks SDCs as a funding mechanism
to begin implementing the Parks Recreation Open Space (PROS) Plan.
For one thing, the Chamber believes the demand for parks is overly
inflated in PROS because that plan did not acknowledge hundreds of
acres of publicly owned land that already functions as open space,
e.g., protected wetlands in west Eugene. An inflated demand for
parks means the SDC rates are going to be set artificially high.
The Chamber also objects to charging parks SDCs on nonresidential
development only to have the money collected then be used by the
city to buy land that is needed for jobs and housing. This adverse
impact on buildable land inventories was another major reason why
the Chamber did not support the PROS Plan.
For additional information contact
Terry Connolly or
242-2353.
Back to Top
|
