Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/24/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 24, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Pryor would not be able to attend the work session. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted that the Princess of Thailand visited the City and donated 1,700 books to local libraries. She attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Fairmount rowhouses, which was a good example of a green building project. She said the council was interviewing police auditor applicants, a delegation from Dublin would visit during the week, and she would attend the Oregon Mayors’ Conference on July 27, 2006. Ms. Solomon reported that she and Mayor Piercy attended the 10th anniversary celebration for St. Vincent de Paul’s Service Station. She commented that it was a wonderful program for the community and represented effective partnerships; the City of Eugene was recognized for its contributions. Ms. Taylor questioned how the city manager could participate in finding traffic solutions for the new hospital since the council was prohibited from expressing an opinion on the project and the manager was an agent of the council. City Attorney Jerome Lidz explained that the council could not prejudge an application that would come before it, not that it could say nothing about the subject. Ms. Taylor asked if helping find traffic solutions would imply that the council made a judgment. Mr. Lidz said he would not characterize it that way. City Manager Dennis Taylor added that his involvement was consistent with the memorandum of understanding on working with McKenzie-Willamette Hospital that the council adopted. He said he was not directly involved but rather associated with seeking traffic solutions through the involvement of the City’s public works and engineering staff who worked with applicants to address traffic issues. Mr. Kelly read a statement in reference to an email on immigration from Springfield City Councilor Dave Ralston. He acknowledged the right of Councilor Ralston and others in the community to speak. He thanked the Latino and broader immigrant community for being valuable residents of the area and expressed regret that they often had to contend with being marginalized, insulted, or worse. He was proud that the Eugene City Council recently reaffirmed the rights and fair and human treatment of all residents, regardless MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 1 Work Session of immigration status. He said the legal and philosophical aspects of immigration had been complex and controversial for decades and hoped that discussions about immigration could be conducted with nuance, respect, reality, and appreciation of the complexities. Mr. Kelly reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee met on July 13 and unanimously adopted a transportation improvement program for FY2006-09 without the West Eugene Parkway. He looked forward to focusing on transportation projects for west and north Eugene in the near- and long-term. He said the Human Right Commission commended the Communities of Color meeting and asked what the next steps would be. He asked the City Manager to consider a follow-up work session with the council. He praised the Fairmount rowhouses as a perfect example of well-designed infill. Mr. Poling reported that on July 10 he attended the Oregon Economic Development Association conference where a number of topics were showcased, including a presentation by Lane Workforce Partnership on the RV (recreational vehicle) consortium. At its July 20 meeting, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) voted unanimously to accept a settlement that was reached regarding problems with the initial pumps installed at the biocycle farm. He said that the second phase of the biocycle farm would include planting approximately 120 acres of poplars. He announced that the Cal Young Neighborhood Association would conduct a candidate forum at its July 27 meeting and encouraged everyone to visit the Science Factory and become acquainted with Jerry Yu, its new executive director. Mr. Papé thanked REI, Inc. for sponsoring the recent river clean-up event and John Brown for his organizing efforts. He remarked that transient camps along the river contributed to water pollution and hoped that Eugene and Springfield cooperated to prevent camps from being located along the river. He hoped that bike trails would also be maintained well in anticipation of the 2008 Olympic Trials. He said that the River Road/Santa Clara community park project was moving forward and might require the City to consider condemnation, depending on site location and acquisition issues. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly that Councilor Ralston was entitled to his opinion and voiced her support for everyone who lived and worked in the community, regardless of whether they were born here or moved here. She believed that everybody deserved the same respect, dignity and opportunities. She appreciated the leadership of the Latino community in responding to the issue. Ms. Ortiz thanked allies that were involved in the gathering at Springfield City Hall. In response to Councilor Ralston’s email, she read a statement indicating she was saddened by his comments regarding illegal immigrants. She agreed he had a right to his opinion but, as elected officials and community leaders, she believed that councilors should not make such comments. She cited a section of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) related to prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from using resources to detect or apprehend persons whose only violation of law was related to federal immigration laws. She thanked Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken for his quick response to Councilor Ralston’s email and the Communities of Color for their efforts. She appreciated the opportunity to participate in events related to the Princess of Thailand’s visit. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to schedule a work session for August 14, 2006, as part of the 7:30 p.m. meeting, to consider what close-in neighborhoods and River Road are currently threatened by inappropriate infill and what can the City can do in the short term to pause or mitigate this negative effect. As part of MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 2 Work Session the preparation for this work session, staff will work with the Jefferson Westside Neighbors to consider approaches to their situation with R-1 to R-2 upzonings. Ms. Bettman stated the issue had been a concern since adoption of Metro Plan housekeeping amendments resulted in vulnerability of a 15-block section in the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood along with areas in River Road and Santa Clara. She reminded councilors that they had received a petition signed by 286 people distributed throughout the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods. She said the motion was sufficiently flexible for staff to work with knowledgeable and interested people to develop options for the council’s consideration at its August 14 meeting. She pointed out that the refinement plan, which dictated approval of zoning changes that allowed high density on already-developed single family sites, did not include any criteria for approval. Mr. Papé appreciated the issue being raised by the Jefferson-Westside neighborhoods and suggested it could be addressed by a moratorium. He noted that an earlier process with the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAHFN) involved the Planning Commission. He felt there was a process already in place and if the motion included River Road it should be done in a more systematic manner that included the Planning Commission. He could not support the motion unless it was narrowed to only address Jefferson-Westside. He relayed comments from River Road community organization people who thought the process should not move forward as quickly as the motion would require. Ms. Taylor said she would support a motion to separate the areas for consideration. She said Jefferson- Westside was the most urgent and she did not understand how the amendment process had happened so quickly and quietly. She said it was important to protect neighborhoods close in to downtown and inappropriate infill, which was happening all over town, was detrimental to neighborhoods. She said visitors were surprised that Eugene had no slums and she was concerned that slums could occur if the council did not move to protect the most vulnerable areas. Mr. Kelly felt that the concerns would be addressed in the long term through the work program and resources provided to develop infill standards and opportunity siting and the issue being raised was whether there were short-term measures that might mitigate some of the harm while those long term solutions were developed. He was not certain there were short-term solutions and noted that even a moratorium would require a minimum of 60 days. He said he would not support the motion if it focused only on Jefferson- Westside because the need for short-term help was broader than just that area and sometimes the council reacted according to which neighborhood was best politically organized at a particular time. Ms. Solomon asked the City Manager to comment on the motion. City Manager Taylor replied that he would be happy to assign staff to work on options short of a moratorium, although providing the material for an August 14 meeting would be challenging. He asked if the council would consider shifting the item to the August 16 meeting. Ms. Bettman agreed to shift the item to the August 16, 2006, meeting agenda. Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to eliminate the phrase “and River Road” from the motion. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman explained that she was originally focused only of the 15-block section of the Jefferson- Westside neighborhood and received feedback that other areas also had emergent issues with infill. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 3 Work Session hoped the focus of expertise on a short-term solution would be applicable to River Road and other areas and that was the wish of other council members as well. Mr. Kelly clarified that feedback from people in River Road and Santa Clara was only from the chairs of those neighborhood associations. He felt the discussion needed to focus on all areas where there was a short-term concern. Mr. Papé was concerned that the process would skip over the Planning Commission to develop solutions for the council. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to limit it to Jef- ferson-Westside. Ms. Bettman said that leadership from River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods recognized the emergent issue in Jefferson-Westside and believed the council should consider a short-term solution for that area. She still believed that a focus on Jefferson-Westside would result in options that would be applicable in other neighborhoods; the difference in Jefferson-Westside was the density that was permitted while the issue with River Road related more to the character of the infill. She wanted the broadest support from the council and would support Mr. Papé’s amendment. Mr. Kelly said a solution requiring a code amendment would have to go through the Planning Commission and require public hearings. He said the motion simply requested a work session and asked staff to discuss a specific problem in the meantime. He was concerned that the motion to amend would establish a precedent that gave priority to those neighborhoods that were well-organized and that was inappropriate from a planning perspective. He said there were issues in many other parts of the community and he did not want to see some neighborhoods treated differently than others. He could not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman said protecting the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood was good for the city. She said there were chronic and acute problems and disagreed that the motion was a reaction to a neighborhood that was politically organized. She believed the reason the neighborhood was organized was because it was facing a threat to the largest investment most people would ever have: their home. People should not be faulted for responding to a threat rather than just moving. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a difference between the friendly amendment from Mr. Poling and Mr. Papé’s proposed amendment. Mr. Papé said there were different problems in different neighborhoods; it was not homogeneous. He did not want to see an “end run” around normal processes. Mr. Kelly clarified that he was not faulting the neighbors in Jefferson-Westside for being organized; he was merely concerned about the other areas that did not have the means or expertise to organize. He said the friendly amendment focused on close-in neighborhoods, while Mr. Papé’s amendment would focus on Jefferson-Westside only. The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed, 6:1; Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 4 Work Session MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Transportation System Maintenance Fee City Manager Taylor introduced Public Works Director Kurt Corey to discuss the challenge of pavement preservation. Mr. Corey provided a brief overview of the issue and stated that five years ago a $67 million backlog of pavement preservation projects was identified and a Budget Subcommittee recommended a new $9 million annual revenue source to address the issue. Subsequently, the council adopted a $0.03 per gallon and $0.02 per gallon local option gas tax. Mr. Corey said despite those efforts and progress made in pavement preservation, the backlog was now approximately $100 million and revenue estimates were short by about $5 million per year for the forecast period. He said operations and maintenance would also experience an approximately $1.5 million shortfall through the forecast period and, consistent with the council’s direction, would be included as part of a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). Mr. Corey said the proposed ordinance included in the agenda packet was similar but not identical to a previous ordinance adopted and then repealed in 2003. He said the proposed ordinance had been expanded to identify the use of some portion of the revenues for operations and maintenance and, in addition, the types and numbers of property classifications had been revised and a modified rate methodology broke rates into three components. Mr. Corey said that rates took into account updated information from the International Transportation Engineer Trip Generation Manual and an updated review of pass-by trip calculations. The revised rate methodology more closely mimicked the structure used for wastewater and stormwater fees in terms of its component parts. The variable trip rate component was proposed as a revenue means for capital preserva- tion as there was a reasonable scientific nexus between vehicle trips and pavement deterioration. He said the flat-based rate component was recommended as a means for filling the operations and maintenance gap; projects in that category were not particularly driven by the volume of vehicle traffic and were perhaps more relevant to a per account or per dwelling basis. He said the final component in the proposal was a flat administrative account. Mr. Corey said the proposed rate methodology provided the City an opportunity to manage an account for pavement preservation dollars separately from other operations and maintenance costs and the trip-based and per account rates were intuitively more equitable in terms of the fairness of the charges. He referred to sample monthly fees included in the agenda packet that were offered, with the caveat they were estimates and based on a number of assumptions, which were enumerated in his memorandum of July 24, 2006. He said the next steps included moving ahead with the public communications plan over the next three months and holding a public hearing to obtain formal public input in October 2006. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a response from schools to the education category. Mr. Corey replied that establishing the category for education was a direct response to discussions with the University of Oregon where it became extremely difficult to rationalize a monthly fee based on the types and sizes of buildings and uses; a per student basis was more understandable and easier to administer. He said rate collection could also take into account that public schools were not in session in the summer. Mr. Kelly referred to a statement in the agenda packet that an additional $6 million per year would stabilize the preservation backlog but noted $4.75 million was budgeted. Mr. Corey said the $6 million figure MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 6 Work Session reflected past discussions related to the forecast that took into account elimination of the $0.02 component of the gas tax. He said the assumption was now that the $0.02 would be renewed in 2008 and the $4.75 million was a point in time for what the FY08 budget would be with a revenue target offset by various sources, leaving $4.75 million. He said that the forecast for future years had that figure at between $5 and $5.5 million. Mr. Kelly asked why $5 to $5.5 million was not budgeted initially. Mr. Corey replied it was based on modeling to achieve the FY08 budget revenue target. Mr. Kelly said that the single residence fee was about 80 percent higher than two years ago, which made sense with the higher revenue target. He asked why the 100,000 square foot retail use had gone from approximately $900 per month to under $700 per month. Mr. Corey explained there was a more sophisti- cated pass-by trip calculation than in the past and, together with fewer categories, the 100,000 square foot supermarket was slightly less in the proposed methodology than in the 2004 methodology; similar changes increasing or decreasing rates had occurred in some of the other categories under the current proposal. Mr. Kelly asked what percentage of the $6.75 million would come from residential accounts and what percentage from nonresidential accounts. Mr. Corey stated that as the program stabilized, it would be split about equally between the two types of accounts. Mr. Kelly supposed that the actual load on the road system would have a much different split between residential and nonresidential. He commented that there was a place in the ordinance where the word “may” was used instead of “shall” and asked for staff feedback. Mr. Corey said the City Attorney built flexibility into the language to allow for differing conditions over time. Mr. Kelly observed that it was politically challenging to establish a TSMF and acknowledge that the public cared about wording; flexibility in wording could present problems and if circumstances changed, the council could always amend the ordinance. Mr. Papé remarked that a TSMF had been under consideration for a number of years and he was ready to move forward on a proposal. He noted that the original ordinance was rescinded on the basis of a promise from the County to work with the City on a solution, but there was no solution yet except the gas tax. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the public wanted specificity in the ordinance in terms of rates and uses and language should not suggest the revenue could be used for other purposes besides curb-to-curb road maintenance. He was interested in whether the subject of a sunset provision would be raised during public hearings. He suggested omitting subsections b and c of Section 7.755 of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Bettman said there had been slippage in the proposed ordinance and agenda item summary in terms of dedicating the funding specifically to maintenance and preservation. She pointed out that the proposed revenue source was based on revenue targets determined by the City Manager at the beginning of the fiscal year; any reductions or discounts meant the money would still be collected, shifting the burden to average ratepayers. She emphasized the need to update the household survey that produced trip generations and was surprised that a 100,000 square foot retail building was considered a pass-by instead of a destination. She asked what data was used to modify pass-bys. Mr. Corey said pass-by calculations used the collective experiences of other Oregon cities that have dealt with the same issue; the factor used to generate numbers was an average of other Oregon cities that had developed pass-by rate calculations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that current funding sources such as the Road Fund were dedicated to maintenance and preservation and asked what would happen to that money. Mr. Corey said in terms of budgeting and the forecast, those revenues continued to be used in the same manner and there was a gap in capital preservation and operations and maintenance components. He said nothing would change with regard to existing revenues. Ms. Taylor continued to oppose a TSMF. She noted that the rate of $5.22 per month could apply to a single family home with no cars as well as a home with six expensive cars. She felt that was unfair. She thought a 30-unit motel would generate more trips than a home. She said streets should be maintained but there were fairer ways to do that and maintenance should be paid for from the General Fund. She urged tax reform and new sources of revenue for the General Fund and, barring that, a County vehicle registration fee should be considered in cooperation with other jurisdictions. She felt it would be very difficult for some households to pay $5.22 per month and asked why the same amount was charged to every residence. Mr. Corey said it had been a theme of the concept from the beginning that everyone benefited from the transportation system—even those who did not own or drive a car—by virtue of the goods and services received as a result of having a transportation system in place. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with a public outreach and education effort and to schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. Mayor Piercy called for a motion to extend the time for discussion. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend discussion time by ten minutes. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon echoed Mr. Papé’s comments about the importance of maintenance being curb-to-curb to demonstrate effective use of the funds generated by the TSMF. She asked if the split between residential and nonresidential accounts would shift from 50:50, as more homes were developed and more residential accounts paid the fee. Mr. Corey said it was possible but he did not think there would be a significant change in the split between account types. Ms. Solomon expressed concern with the $465,000 cost for EWEB to administer the TSMF. Mr. Corey said that amount was based on an assumption that the cost to collect the TSMF would be about the same as the cost to collect wastewater and stormwater fees; the figure represented payment to a vendor to collect the fee and in-house administrative costs. Mr. Kelly commented that he supported the 2002 version of the TSMF but not the 2004 version and was not certain whether he would support the proposed ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Papé’s suggestion to strike two subsections in the ordinance but pointed out the ordinance as written did provide for maintenance and preservation of sidewalks and off-street bike paths. He said there was no other obvious revenue source for the off-street bike paths. Regarding Ms. Bettman’s question about updated trip generation data, he said that new information was being developed in Portland based on several cities and would be available sometime in 2007. Ms. Bettman asked if it was correct that nothing in the proposed ordinance maintained the dedication of existing funds to the purposes for which they were currently being used, such as the dedication of Road MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Fund reimbursement fee for operations, maintenance, and some preservation. Mr. Corey responded that dedicated revenues that were only available for certain purposes without the ordinance would have no change in status based on passage of the ordinance. Ms. Bettman felt there was a risk that a new revenue source would result in administrative movement in the budget over the years of Road Fund money and other resources out and increasing the TSMF piece. She noted that projections were based on FY08 and would change in terms of single-family accounts if some of the discounts or waivers were enacted. She said the inequity was also reflected in a flat-based component of $1.90 per month and flat administrative component which assessed a big-box store the same as a single- family home. She said those components should be based on use of the system. She felt the City should increase its efforts with the legislature so when there was money available it could be used for maintenance and preservation of the existing system. Ms. Solomon said using a percentage for bike paths was a point of deliberation at the subcommittee level as there was recognition of the need to dedicate a small percentage, preferably less than five percent, for bike paths. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Corey said there was no other funding source for maintenance of off-street bike paths except some grant funds. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Sign Code Enforcement City Manager Taylor introduced Land Use Supervisor Mike McKerrow to discuss Sign Code enforcement. He said the issue was raised by Ms. Ortiz. Mr. McKerrow presented an overview of the Sign Code since its adoption in 1968. He said the Sign Code did not regulate sign content but did regulate the number, size and location of signs based on the district in which they were located. He said enforcement was done on a complaint basis unless there was a safety issue and complaints had to be submitted in writing. He said about 30 sign complaints were received each year, with many of those from competing businesses hoping for a level playing field. He explained enforcement procedures and used photographs to illustrate examples of prohibited portable signs and approved directional signs for businesses that did not have street frontage. He said an exemption for portable signs in general was within the Downtown Activity Zone if certain size and location standards were met. Mr. Kelly said he wanted a change to the Sign Code to allow portable signs with some restrictions because he was concerned both about supporting small businesses and by the fact that enforcement was complaint- driven and often based on an antagonistic situation between two businesses. He said a small business would not have the resources to go through the variance process required for directional signs and suggested that portable signs could be allowed with restrictions such as reasonable size, no blocking of sidewalks, and removal during nonbusiness hours. He noted that one option was to include Sign Code issues for prioritiza- tion in the next code update process and asked if that process would allow the council to see all suggestions, not just those recommended to move forward. Mr. McKerrow said the Planning Division would need to answer that question. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked why complaints had to be in writing. Mr. McKerrow said that was a policy decision based on availability of staff resources, need for consistent enforcement, barrier to frivolous or vindictive complaints, and need for complete information. Ms. Taylor said it seemed that if an illegal sign was noticed the code should be enforced. She noted that Sign Code enforcement was cut from the budget after Measure 47 and she did not approve at the time. She asked if complaints had to be in writing prior to the budget cuts. Mr. McKerrow said the policy was changed to require a written complaint after the budget cuts. Ms. Taylor said she wanted to see the policy change reversed. Ms. Ortiz felt that enforcement that was complaint-driven was somewhat inequitable and she would be interested in exploring ways to expand opportunities for small businesses to have portable signs. Ms. Bettman said she was in favor of having a process for examining the issues, but saw some areas of concern. She said if a business with a large sign decided to also have a portable sign by the street the situation could become unmanageable. She pointed out that the portable signs in the photograph were distracting drivers’ attention from a traffic sign warning of the presence of children and a proliferation of sidewalk signs could create traffic and pedestrian hazards. She said there should be very clearly defined criteria for allowing portable signs and that would also require enforcement. Mr. Poling suggested that any approval of portable signs should include sight distance from driveways and intersections to avoid blocking the view of oncoming traffic. Mr. Papé asked if real estate signs were currently permitted. Mr. McKerrow replied that the Sign Code included exceptions for real estate signs; however, the exception was for the sign to be placed on the property for sale or lease. He said enforcement of real estate sign regulations was also complaint-driven and recent surveys of two arterials indicated about 15 percent of businesses were currently using illegal portable signs. Mr. Papé said the real estate industry should be involved in discussions of the Sign Code and well informed about its provisions. He felt the Sign Code should be enforced. Mayor Piercy said the City was proud of its Sign Code, which related to the livability of the community and how it looked and functioned. She was sympathetic to small businesses but felt that portable signs should be the exception instead of the rule. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include considering allowing portable signs, with reasonable restrictions, during the next code update process to begin this summer. That will mean this issue will be included in the Planning and City Coun- cil discussion for prioritization along with other issues raised during the public out- reach. Mr. Kelly suggested looking at how other jurisdiction had addressed restrictions on portable signs. He felt the signs would be used primarily in strip mall areas. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman observed that businesses could build near the sidewalk if they wished to have a street and sidewalk presence. Mayor Piercy remarked that if it was too easy, businesses could have both large and small signs. Mr. Papé said the code could be revised to allow reasonable, enforceable use of portable signs or there would continue to be a proliferation of illegal signs. The motion passed, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 11 Work Session