Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/19/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall January 19, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Prior. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Papd. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Measure 37 Update and Effect on Planning and Development Work Plan City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council that, following the passage of Ballot Measure 37, it adopted an ordinance so the City could process claims made under the measure. He introduced Planning Director Susan Muir and City Attorney Glenn Klein, who were present to discuss other issues related to the measure and its impact on the Planning Division work plan. Planner Neil Bj6rklund was also present to answer questions. Mr. Klein reported that the City of Eugene had yet to receive a Ballot Measure 37 claim; Lane County had received a handful, and the City of Springfield had been informally notified it faced one or two claims. He said that around the state, slightly more than 100 claims have been filed, most of them with counties. About 40 percent of those claims were made by those wishing to build a single-family house on their property. Another 40 percent were those filed by property owners wishing to develop rural subdivisions; the remaining 20 percent fell into a number of other categories. Mr. Klein noted a lawsuit had been filed against the State and State officials as well as against Clackamas, Washington, and Marion counties by several farm bureaus and 1,000 Friends of Oregon, who were seeking to have the ballot measure set aside. A number of issues were raised in the suit, including equal privileges and immunities and the separation of powers. Until the Circuit Court issued a decision and it was acted on by higher courts, the case would not have any impact on the actions taken by Eugene or other cities or counties outside the specific defendants in the case. He did not anticipate a decision by the Court of Appeals for at least two years. Mr. Klein reported that at the Oregon Legislature, some bills related to the implementation of Ballot Measure 37 had been filed. He did not know which bills would gain support. He said a joint session had been held by the House and Senate land use committees, which heard testimony from a wide variety of parties regarding possible adjustments to the measure. He noted that the representative of Oregonians in Action, a sponsor of the measure, had indicated his belief that no changes were needed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Klein reported that several weeks ago, Governor Ted Kulongoski's legal counsel announced that waivers made under Ballot Measure 37 were not transferable in most cases. He had not yet seen the written opinion. Mr. Klein said that he and Ms. Muir reviewed the Planning Division work program and concluded that, with the possible exception of the City's Goal 5-related work, nothing needed adjustment. Ms. Muir reviewed the City's progress on meeting its State commitments with regard to periodic review of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, in particular its work on meeting the State mandates set out under Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources. The intent of the effort was to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. She briefly overviewed the history of that effort. She noted that the actions the City had taken in regard to that effort had already been appealed twice. Ms. Muir said the City was working to meet a July 1, 2005, deadline for its Goal 5 work. She said several months of work and public input-gathering remained. She anticipated a controversial and contentious process. Staff had been informed any decision would be appealed, no matter what it was. Ms. Muir noted that Eugene would be one of the first jurisdictions adopting Goal 5 work following the passage of Ballot Measure 37 and that the City's work would be watched closely. In conclusion, Mr. Klein said staff was not recommending the City shift directions in regard to its Goal 5 work. He believed that would be premature. He recommended the City go through the process and determine what protection measures it wished to adopt. In June, staff would identify the potential Ballot Measure 37 implications of the measures satisfying Goal 5. Assuming the protection measures were not exempt and there was a reduction in property value due to a local ordinance, a property owner probably would have a valid Ballot Measure 37 claim. He said that he and Ms. Muir met with staff of the Depart- ment of Land Conservation and Development the previous week, and he believed that if the City received many claims, the State would be willing to work with Eugene to develop something that satisfied Goal 5 while avoiding such claims. Staff had developed some options it was beginning to explore in regard to limiting the City's exposure to Ballot Measure 37 claims for the council's later consideration. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the background information provided to the council. He concurred with the staff recommendation that the City should continue its natural resource inventory work. The City Council would then be able to adopt any ordinance with ;;its eyes open" regarding the potential risk. Mr. Kelly asked about the recommendation of the Jobs and Land Use Roundtable that an uplands inventory be conducted. Ms. Muir said that staff requested additional information from the roundtable. At this time, the inventory was not on the work program. Mr. Kelly suggested further discussion in June. Mr. Poling asked if any claims had been filed directly with Circuit Court. Mr. Klein said no. Under the provisions of the measure, a property owner must first file a claim with the City, wait 180 days, and then go to court. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Poling asked for more information about the appeals mentioned by Ms. Muir. Ms. Muir said the first appeal was made by property owners objecting to having their property included in the City's Goal 5 inventory and, in that case, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) upheld the City. The second appeal was filed by an individual property owner objecting to the inclusion of her property on the inventory; in that case, the decision was remanded to Lane County, and the State ordered the property taken off the inventory. Mr. Poling asked the basis for the appeals. Ms. Muir said a number of different issues were involved, but essentially the property owners in question objected to the inclusion of their properties in the inventory. There were no physical commonalities between the properties involved in the appeals. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said municipalities generally have no obligations to provide municipal services to residents living outside city limits. He said that with regard to rural subdivisions, even if a jurisdiction waived a minimum parcel size requirement, for example, that did not mean a rural subdivision would be built. Other regulations would probably have to be waived as well, and that might not occur. For example, in the case of a large subdivision, it was unlikely a developer would be able to get water and sewer services. He had not heard of any large rural subdivisions that would be located outside an urban growth boundary or within the urban transition area locally. Ms. Bettman said she believed the real impact of Ballot Measure 37 would be on the City's inability to regulate property in the future. She thought the council needed to consider what it could do to balance the impact of the measure. If one could make the argument that zoning or land use changes decrease a property's value, the City could argue that the opposite was true, and that such zoning and land use changes increased a property's value. She wanted the City to pursue that concept to determine whether it could capture that increase in value and create a fund to pay for Ballot Measure 37 claims. Ms. Bettman asked staff to discuss what significant Goal 5 resources were in question in the inventory. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the inventory included wetlands, riparian areas, upland wildlife habitat areas. The Delta Ponds system, the Willamette River, and the Amazon headwaters were among notable features in the inventory. Ms. Bettman asked how the City could move forward and develop some proposals to implement her suggestion. City Manager Dennis Taylor suggested that Ms. Bettman poll her fellow councilors for a work session on the topic, noting it would compete with other council work plan demands. He added that the subject was complex and could involve action by the State legislature. Mr. Klein concurred that it would not be simple to accomplish what Ms. Bettman was interested in doing. He said that such an approach had been discussed following the passage of Ballot Measure 7. There were some potential options, but it would not be a short discussion given the legal issues involved and some preemptions that existed in State law. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Muir said the City did not have an analysis of property purchases that indicated any number of potential claims. She said that in the case of the inventory, all the affected property owners would have potential Ballot Measure 37 claims as the regulations being contem- plated were new. Mr. Kelly again emphasized that the inventory should go forward. He said that ;;knowledge was power," MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 3 Work Session and there was value in understanding the significance of individual natural resources. What the City subsequently did about those resources was another question. Referring to the Planning Division's work plan, Mr. Kelly encouraged staff to do public outreach to solicit key amendments to the Land Use Code. He suggested that if a member of the public suggested a key amendment to the Land Use Code that required substantial effort or had citywide implications, staff should check in with the council to see if there was interest in moving forward. Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Muir that the majority of the funding appropriated for amendments to the Land Use Code had not yet been spent. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the work plan item entitled ;;Refinement Plan Audit." Ms. Muir explained that the Planning Commission had heard citizen complaints that there were neighborhoods without refinement plans that wanted them, and neighborhoods with outdated refinement plans that would like them updated. The commission hoped to take a comprehensive look at all refinement plan issues and prioritize them to get an idea of what needed to be worked on first. She thought the commission would have more discussion on the item prior to the joint meeting with the council in June. Mr. Kelly thought the effort sounded promising. Ms. Bettman did not think the refinement plan audit should be a high priority without a commitment of resources. She thought it should be made a high priority. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about ;;definition creep," and asked that specific definitions come back to the council regarding the terms ;;mixed-use" and ;;nodal." Ms. Bettman requested more information regarding what would be spent on the site-specific nodal planning. Ms. Muir recalled that there were two $100,000 allocations split between the Land Use Code update and the site-specific planning. Ms. Muir said that $60,000 was allocated to the Land Use Code, and $140,000 was allocated to site-specific mixed use planning. She referred Ms. Bettman to the two-year work program for the funding allocations. Ms. Taylor agreed there was value in proceeding with the inventory. The information was important, regardless of what was done with it. Ms. Taylor noted that employment projections for the nodes had increased, and she asked what types of jobs were involved, and the wages. Ms. Muir said she would check to see if that data was available. Ms. Taylor requested a council tour of the various nodes. Ms. Taylor noticed marketing materials were mentioned in the materials related to the topic, and said any kind of City ~marketing or propaganda" concerned her. Ms. Muir said that the information would be educational rather than persuasive. She encouraged Ms. Taylor to visit the division's web site for examples. Ms. Taylor referred to the mention of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards in the nodal development implementation work program and asked if its inclusion was a way to eliminate the standards. Ms. Muir said that was not the intent. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked what staff meant by the reference to "developing new tools." Ms. Muir said that could refer to regulation, for example. Ms. Taylor asked if "nodal development" and "smart growth" were considered the same thing. Ms. Muir interpreted nodal development as the local term for smart growth, a more nationally known terminology. Ms. Taylor said that the mention of "smart growth" would alarm some people. Ms. Muir emphasized that the work plan did not represent adopted regulations, but conceptual thoughts for the City to consider. The City Council was the ultimate decision-maker. Ms. Taylor did not want the process to go too far before the council made a final decision. Mr. Kelly said he wanted to ensure that one could tell the difference between areas developed under the nodal development standards and a conventional commercial or residential development. If the standards were watered down, he said, "Why bother?" Mr. Kelly said that the alternative path may present Ballot Measure 37 opportunities, but it had been discussed before the measure was contemplated, and had a broader value. Mr. Klein clarified that the focus was not just the ballot measure, but a way to deal with the measure. Mr. Kelly asked that staff prepare a table showing what had been zoned to achieve 900 acres of regional nodal zoning. Mr. Kelly suggested that the comment related to the work plan item on special districts be modified to indicate that it referred to the County's interest in creating a public safety district. Ms. Bettman thought the special districts work plan item was too high on the priority list, given that the council did not support the formation of such districts. She asked that staff reconsider that. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said there may be a way to incorporate the Ballot Measure 37 waiver process into the code. A new set of procedures would have to be established for that process, and those procedures did not exist. He emphasized that any waiver decision would have to be made by the council. Noting that Ballot Measure 37 laid out a claims process that allowed the claimant to "hold all the marbles," Ms. Bettman suggested staff consider how effective such a process was before creating it. Mayor Piercy thanked staff and the Planning Commission for the work they had done in regard to the item. B. WORK SESSION: Transportation Funding for Pavement Preservation City Manager Taylor recalled the long history of the item and the considerable public effort that had gone into resolving the issue of funding for pavement preservation. Some progress had been made over the past three years. He noted that Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey was present for the item. Mr. Corey called the council's attention to a chart prepared for the meeting entitled City of Eugene Transportation System Funding. The chart illustrated what he termed the "three legs" of transportation funding: 1) transportation system operations and maintenance; 2) transportation system capital preserva- MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 5 Work Session tion; and 3) new streets, enhanced capacity, special projects. Mr. Corey reviewed the recent history of pavement preservation funding efforts. He dated the most recent effort to September 27, 2004, at which time the council directed staff to return with draft ordinances increasing the local gas tax and establishing a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). In October the council decided against proceeding with a TSMF and proceeded with the gas tax increase. A public hearing on the increase was held in December 2004. Mr. Corey noted the staff response to council questions, included in the agenda item summary as Attach- ment B. He noted that action on the proposed ordinance was tentatively scheduled for January 24. Mr. Corey called attention to a proposed amendment to the ordinance to increase the Business License Tax for motor fuel dealers by an amount to be determined. The council would determine the increase in the local option gas tax. Staff continued to recommend a two-cent increase as consistent with the recommendations of the Budget Committee. The ordinance as amended would provide a partial refund on certain sales of bulk diesel fuels, which would affect over the road trucking companies located in Eugene. The ordinance change was modeled on Springfield's ordinance. Few of the miles traveled by such businesses were on city streets. Mr. Corey noted housekeeping amendments proposed for the ordinance, reflected in the draft ordinance provided to the council in the agenda item summary. Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. Corey for his comprehensive update. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor asked why people who commuted to other cities would not receive a refund on the tax. Mr. Corey said that many people, such as tourists, could make the case that they would not be traveling on city streets and could argue for a refund. He thought the case of the trucking community was unique. Mr. Corey believed that if the City did not provide refunds to the trucking industry, it would put the community at a competitive disadvantage with Springfield, which did provide such refunds in its ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked if a local vehicle registration fee could provide adequate transportation funding. Mr. Corey said yes, if the State legislature lifted its preemption. He noted that even with the adoption of an increase in the local option gas tax, the City still had a funding gap. Ms. Taylor called for a discussion of bonding to fund pavement maintenance and upgrades. She noted that she was still undecided about an increase in the gas tax. She did not support passing an ordinance that gave staff the ability to raise the tax without council action. Ms. Solomon asked staff what other strategies it had to close the funding gap given that the two-cent gas tax increase would be insufficient, and to what extent was Lane County ready to listen to Eugene again. She asked what other Lane County communities were doing. Mr. Corey suggested that as a strategy, the City continue to pursue the work it had been doing over the past five years. He personally believed that the ultimate solution was a locally controlled, fee-based system that would resemble a transportation utility fee, such as the previously considered TSMF. He said there may be other options staff had not looked at. He acknowledged that whatever was proposed, it could compete with other City priorities, and encouraged the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 6 Work Session council to take a long-term examination. In regard to the actions taken by other Lane County cities, he said that most had enacted a local option gas tax. Ms. Solomon reminded the council that nine other cities in Oregon had transportation utility fees. She acknowledged the lack of council support previously shown for the idea, but suggested that the council discuss it again. She encouraged other councilors to work together to get the County to work with Eugene. Mr. Poling said he had informed Commissioner Bobby Green that if the County did not assist in a solution, the City was likely to revisit the TSMF. He believed the funding problem was a countywide problem, and was disappointed by the County's lack of effort in helping to solve it. He was willing to meet again with the County to discuss the issue as he thought the problem bigger than Eugene alone, and a permanent solution was needed to fund it. Mr. Poling questioned whether a two-cent gas tax increase would make much difference, given the wide variance in gasoline prices among gasoline stations located in the same area. He noted the letter to the editor written by resident Art Farley in support of the increase, which suggested that residents would pay only $20 more annually. Mr. Poling suggested that the countywide discussion also include representatives from cities outside Lane County. Ms. Bettman said she would support the gas tax if the City was using all the money available for mainte- nance and preservation for that purpose, but it was not. She regretted the council considered the issue in a vacuum and was not considering the issue in the context of other funding issues. She criticized the allocation of flexible dollars that could be used on preservation, such as the Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds, to projects such as the Monroe-Friendly bicycle project and the Chad Drive extension, which could be funded by other sources. Ms. Bettman thought the City was wasting money in how it prioritized what it spent its money on. Until the City consolidated and dedicated those funding sources to preservation and maintenance, she was not willing to consider an increase in the gas tax. Mr. Pryor said he was willing to seek additional funding from the County as long as the City could actually claim a need for the funds. Mr. Pryor said the maintenance needs were huge, and it was clear the City was getting to its major streets first. It was currently doing triage, and that would continue in the absence of a solution. He suggested a connection between residents and the City about the nature of their repairs and suggesting a cooperative approach. He recognized that few would want to do that, but maybe some people felt their streets were in such bad condition they were willing to fund a solution. The City could then focus what money it had on its highest priority projects. Mayor Piercy said she heard a desire to take a look at the City's transportation and maintenance priorities in a larger context. She asked how that could occur. City Manager Taylor said that he hoped the council would discuss a comprehensive approach. The gas tax increase did not preclude changing federal allocations for the region, discussions with the County, or reconsideration of the transportation maintenance fee. He emphasized that some progress had been made, but there was no single solution. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed there would be value independent of the ordinance before the council in having a broader conversation with the County and other cities. He encouraged Mayor Piercy and City Manager to work together to accomplish that. Mr. Kelly said it would be interesting to know how much flexible funding, such as the STP-U money, was allocated annually to Eugene, and the percentage of those funds that were controlled by the Eugene City Council as opposed to being controlled by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (mPC). Mr. Kelly was not comfortable with the proposed diesel exemption. He said if there was a general exemption procedure that was available to all parties, he would not object. However, he did not want to single out an industry and suggest they were more equal than other parties. Mr. Kelly indicated interest in revisiting the initial TSMF, not the modified one reviewed by the council. Ms. Solomon said the council had been given the full picture of transportation funding six years ago by former Public Works Director Christine Andersen, and the council was aware of the problems and the solutions that existed. She hoped the council would %tep up the plate" and take action. Ms. Solomon asked when the council could offer the voters a chance to consider a TSMF. Mr. Klein indicated the soonest an election could be scheduled was May 2005. Selecting that date would require the City to pay for some or all of the costs of the election. If the election was scheduled for November 2005 or May 2006, the City would incur no costs. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, that a supermajority was not required to pass a TSMF. Ms. Bettman said she did not mean to imply that the City was wasting money on transportation projects or that the Chad Drive extension project was a waste of money. Her point was that the project was originally to be paid for through assessments and systems development charge because it was a new road and it increased capacity. Now flexible funding was proposed for those projects, which was not consistent with the council's highest priority of fixing roads first. Since other funding sources existed, those should be used instead of money that could be used to fix potholes. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Mr. Corey said that the Chad Drive project was identified in the Capital Improvement Program as being funded through SDCs or assessments. A portion of what would have otherwise been paid for by transportation SDC revenues would be paid by the STP-U funding. There would still be direct assessments to the property owners. Ms. Bettman said that the project qualified as a modernization project based on the matrix viewed by the MPC. When the matrix came before the MPC, she had asked if preservation projects could be included in the heading of modernization, she was told by staff the answer was yes; however, when staff returned with the project list, that was not the case, and the MPC had voted to support the criteria. Ms. Taylor thanked Ms. Solomon for giving credit to Ms. Anderson for her emphasis on pavement preservation. She also thanked Ms. Bettman for pointing out the City needed to watch all flexible funds carefully. She said she had not given up on a countywide registration fee. She thought the City gave up too easily, and that people were aware of the need for road maintenance funding. Ms. Bettman referred to the proposed ordinance and said that it appeared the calculation for the reduction of the tax on diesel fuel was based on Springfield numbers and asked if that could be verified before the council considered the ordinance. Mr. Corey said staff had verified those numbers with the industry representatives. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 9 Work Session