Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/14/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 14, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy called the council's attention to an article in the latest edition of Sunset magazine featuring the arts in Eugene. Mr. Poling said he received an e-mail update from Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2 Manager Bob Pirrie regarding the 1-105 resurfacing project. He had learned that most of the work was being done at night and the project was not affecting traffic yet. The overpass on Coburg Road would be shut down in mid-April for 12 days, and traffic rerouted onto surface roads coming in and out of Eugene. He encouraged people to plan ahead and take alternative routes to their place of destination. Mr. Poling wished the State of Oregon a happy birthday. Ms. Bettman congratulated the City and the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) for entering into a sales agreement for the former Sears property. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council received an administrative order increasing land use planning fees. She appreciated the proactive increase, noting the subsidy to the service from the General Fund in fiscal year (FY) 2004 was nearly $900,000. She asked the manager to project the service's General Fund subsidy for FY2006 prior to the annual budget review. Speaking to the issue of the overpass closure, Ms. Ortiz asked those residents who were viewing the meeting to be more aware of emergency vehicles when they were traveling in the Coburg Road area during the time the roads would be impacted by construction. Mr. Pryor said he, Mayor Piercy, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Pap~ attended a dinner for Congressman Peter DeFazio the previous night, which he characterized as successful. Ms. Taylor also wished happy birthday to Oregon. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor said that she received several constituent complaints that Animal Control had been patrolling south Eugene very heavily, although there were no stray animals in that part of the community. She said residents had asked how Animal Control was able to patrol all the time when the agency was supposed to be short of money. Ms. Taylor expressed disappointment the City had not taken advantage of a grant from the State to buy property on Dillard Street and Nectar Way. Ms. Taylor said that residents living on Whitbeck Boulevard were told any damage to their private road resulting from the construction of a new three-home development would be repaired and paid for by the developer. The road had been damaged and the developer had refused to pay for it. She said the residents were hoping the City would follow up and see to it the repairs were made. Mr. Pap~ determined from City Manager Taylor that the agreement with ORI was consistent with the information the council had reviewed earlier. City Manager Taylor noted that as a result of the agreement, the City would be responsible for demolition. He anticipated that the City would soon go to bid for asbestos abatement related to the demolition. Mr. Pap~ wished the American Cancer Society well in its annual fund-raising effort. Mr. Pap~ said he had recently attended the quarterly board meeting of the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). There was much going on at the State legislature, and the LOC would need help in lobbying for issues important to Oregon cities. He anticipated that individual councilors would be contacted to lobby on certain issues by either the LOC or the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Speaking to the Nectar Way issue, Mr. Pap~ expressed sympathy for the nearby residents' desires that the land be purchased for open space, but said a recent mailing from the Parks and Open Space Division regarding the comprehensive parks plan indicated there was a shortage of park land in his ward in north Eugene. Until there was more equity in the allocation of park land throughout the community, he would be hard-pressed to support additional parks and open space acquisitions in south Eugene, which was already well-served in that regard. Mr. Kelly recalled that at the January 10, 2005, meeting, he had asked for a memorandum updating the council on the Nectar Way situation. He did not recall receiving that update. City Manager Taylor said that information was provided to Ms. Taylor that might not have been provided to other councilors, and agreed to follow-up. Mr. Kelly referred to the administrative order increasing land use planning fees, and expressed satisfaction that the fees were arrived at after considerable study and were not the result of arbitrary capriciousness. Mr. Kelly congratulated the City for the purchase-sale agreement with ORI. City Manager Taylor commended Mike Sullivan and Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department for their work with ORI in bringing the matter to a conclusion. City Manager Taylor commended the Eugene Stream Team for all the work that the team had been doing recently. He expressed appreciation for the volunteers who worked so hard through the rain to plant MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 2 Work Session hundreds of trees along the north bank bicycle trail. B. WORK SESSION: Street Assessment Policies City Engineer Mark Schoening joined the council for the item. He provided a PowerPoint presentation on Eugene's street assessment policies. Copies of the presentation were provided to the council. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Schoening said residents pay for their side of the width of a local street, the width of which could be from 20 to 24 feet, depending on the parking provided. That was the same amount a resident living along a collector street would be assessed for improvements, although in the case of a collector, the City would assume more of the costs for street lights and traffic calming. Ms. Taylor suggested that residents living on a collector lost their ability to choose whether to be assessed or not. Ms. Taylor asked how many people had lost their homes because of street assessments. Mr. Schoening believed there was a situation in the River Road/Santa Clara area that involved a sewer assessment on an undeveloped property. Ms. Taylor believed there had been situations where a street assessment exceeded the value of the property being assessed. She observed that some communities pay for such street improvements by issuing bonds, while others use General Funds. Ms. Taylor continued to be disturbed about the City's use of the term %enefited properties," suggesting it should be ~abutting properties" because frequently residents did not benefit from street projects and were actually harmed by the changes to the their streets. In addition, she believed properties on side streets may benefit more than those being assessed. Ms. Taylor asked if people in the West University Neighborhood were accepting of the alley improvement project. Mr. Schoening said that many of the property owners were absentee landowners, and the City had not had a lot of contact with them. PeaceHealth, which was being assessed for alley improvements, was supportive of the project. He had heard no negative feedback from other property owners being assessed. Ms. Taylor found that interesting given the negative feedback the City heard in other places in regard to street assessments. Mr. Pap~ recalled that the council subcommittee that had worked on the City's assessment policies had been formed to make the policies more equitable. It had examined many different approaches before developing its recommendations to the council. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Schoening that the City used systems development charge (SDC) revenues to underwrite the public cost of arterials and collectors. SDC revenues could not be spent on local streets. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Schoening the City could deviate from its street design standards in areas with slopes, waterways, and vegetation using the context-sensitive design process. Mr. Schoening said that would allow the City to take into account the topography and character of a neighborhood. He hoped staff had conveyed that message at the work session on the Crest Drive street classification issue. Mr. Schoening MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 3 Work Session said the question in regard to the Crest Drive area was whether the City could do the design work without the need to initiate a local improvement district (LID) and then recover those costs if the project went forward. Subsequently, the City Attorney determined that could be done. Mr. Pap~ suggested the City faced a %hicken and egg" situation. He asked how the City Council was to proceed. City Manager Taylor suggested one approach was to set aside a certain amount of money each year that the City would use on a council-initiated LID based on better information about the exact design. That was a substantial departure for current practice, however. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could offer neighborhoods the option of lessening the cost and increasing the environmental impact with context- sensitive design standards that left ditches in place, for example. Mr. Schoening suggested the design standards could increase the cost and lessen the environmental impact. A ditch may require additional right- of-way and could cost more to design and construct. City Manager Taylor suggested the question before the council was the degree of risk it was willing to take in initiating projects that may not end up in an LID that would survive the remonstrance process. Mr. Pap~ asked how the council could work with the department discussing alternatives to the standards that were currently in place for local streets. Mr. Schoening said as mentioned during the Crest Drive work session, the City had the flexibility within the current standards to do something different. However, determining what that was and how it would affect individual properties required the initiation of the design, funded up front. Staff estimated it would cost $240,000 to tell residents what the streets would look like and how the drainage system would work. Mr. Kelly clarified that there was a potential that the council could fund the design work for the Crest Drive area before the formation of the LID, assuming the risk those design costs would not be recovered. Mr. Schoening concurred. Mr. Kelly said he was willing to look at potential changes to the street assessment system, but the council committee he and Mr. Pap~ served on had worked extensively to develop the current system. It was not perfect, but it was the best the committee could do. Mr. Kelly discussed the staff-proposed options for initiating street improvements outside a petition poll; he said the assessment for local streets was a targeted fee on property owners living adjacent to the street. In the case of arterials and collectors, which have an area-wide benefit, he could understand why the council might need to make a politically unpopular decision and force the assessment. However, in the case of a local street, the condition of the street had the most impact on local residents, and he wanted to ensure that those streets used the petition poll system. If those residents did not feel the improvement necessary, he did not think the council should impose the improvement. Mr. Kelly would consider exceptions in cases where a street's function bordered between local and collector and there was a wider area benefit. Another exception he would consider was the situation the council faced in the West University Neighborhood, where there was a wide disconnect between those that used and those that owned a property. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's comments. She said one of the options prepared by staff involved the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars and she was not prepared to support that given the other demands on those funds. She said staff referred to the Acorn Park project in the presentation and the use of CDBG dollars in that case was to facilitate pedestrian access to the park. That MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 4 Work Session raised another issue for her, which was the City's ability to ensure that infrastructure was in place when low-income, high-density housing was built. She said the City may have to start looking at those kinds of issues when it considered additional densification and intensification of use. In regard to the rezoning of Crescent, she asked if the City had looked at the rezoning it had done in that area to assess the impact of that on the transportation system in a comprehensive way, as opposed to looking at each change "in a vacuum." While staff frequently maintained that there was no impact from such rezonings, they all have a cumulative impact on the system. She said that the City may have to change its policies to require upfront help with the infrastructure when such zone changes occur. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Schoening said the City offered a deferral of the street assessment payment to some later date when the property changed hands. Mayor Piercy asked about the nature of the subsidy available. Mr. Schoening said it ranged from one-third to five-sixths of the assessment and was based on income level without regard to age. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly discussed funding the City's share of the cost of local assessment projects. He said that the first question that came to mind was the cost of that, and how often it happened. If the petition poll process was rarely successful, he believed the City share was a pretty small number in absolute dollars. He asked for a better sense of that. Mr. Kelly did not like the 100 percent rule, although he understood why the City took that approach with regard to alleys. He thought it removed the fairness from the process and spread the unfairness to more property owners. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the use of CDBG dollars, Mr. Kelly said he was not suggesting any changes, but different cities use that money for very different things. In Eugene, the money was used to fund capital improvement for nonprofit organizations. He said he would like to have a council work session on the origin of that tradition, what other communities do, and if periodically the council should revisit the issue. City Manager Taylor said he had served in other communities where CDBG dollars were used both in eligible areas and for eligible individuals as part of an overall strategy to upgrade certain areas. It provided an additional equity for people sustaining the costs of an LID. It had been a very successful approach because it provided an incentive for people to get their roads improved and in the long-term improved the value of their property. In all such cases, there were community-wide maintenance districts in which all participated. C. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(h), the council entered into executive session. Following the executive session, Mayor Piercy reconvened the council to take action on the Consent Calendar. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 5 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 6 Work Session 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 3, 2005, State of the City Address - January 10, 2005 ,Work Session - January 10, 2005, City Council Meeting - January 24, 2005, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4824, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4816 (Arthur C. Carmichael, Jr. and Larry Von Klein). D. Adoption of Resolution 4825, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4815 (1375 Olive, LLC). Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Ms. Taylor asked to remove Item B from the Consent Calendar. The motion to adopt the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item B, passed unanimously. The council agreed to revisit Item B at the regular meeting. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 7 Work Session