Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/1989 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall May 31, 1989 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Roger Rutan, Rob Bennett, Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman. The adjourned meeting of May 24, 1989, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Mayor Jeff Miller. I. ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER A. Echo Hollow Development Mr. Green reported concern on the part of a constituent regarding the potentially irritating noise level associated with a new business to be located in the Echo Hollow-plaza. Staff agreed to explore the matter. B. School Visitations Mr. Green said he had spoken at Clear lake Elementary School May 25 and he read a 5th-grade student's composition on the topic of peace. Mr. Boles reported that he had visited Shasta Middle School and remarked on the students' depth of understanding of the homelessness issue. C. Lincoln School Mr. Boles asked the City to respond to a letter from Ted Allen suggesting that the City plans to sell Lincoln School to the fairgrounds. D. Hiroshima/Nagasaki Observance Mr. Boles reported that Eugene had been invited to send delegates to an annual observance of the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Japan. He said private fund-raising was intended to cover expenses. E. Child-care Program Ms. Schue reported that she had recently attended a meeting of the Joint Parks Committee where she learned of a PARCS Department after-school MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 1 e recreation program for children in grades 1 through 5 at Petersen Barn that is to be expanded to other community centers soon. She said that the program would charge for its costs and that no subsidies are presently available. Mr. Bennett encouraged exploring whether the program, like Kidsports, could include children whose parents are unable to pay. Mr. Boles added that using a voluntary sliding fee scale or seeking private sponsorships for a scholarship program could fund that participation, and he supported including such a mechanism in the expanded program initially. Mr. Holmer pointed out that existing recreation programs are self-supporting and it was beyond the authority of the Joint Parks Committee to make a policy decision to change that. He suggested that the committee look at program costs and he recommended that a charge-base be sought that would support scholarships. F. Sister City Program Referring to the recent visit of a sister-city delegation from Chinju, Mr. Holmer pointed out that all four of Eugene's sister cities are Asiatic and he recommended that the Sister City Commission broaden its base to include South America, Africa, Europe, and Australia by spreading its current level of support among additional, or other, cities. e Mayor Miller announced the signing of a renewed agreement with our Korean sister city and said that Eugene's relationship with Chinju was Korea's first sister-city agreement. G. Joint Meeting on Annexation and Urban Transition Mayor Miller said conversations with Lane County Commissioner Steve Cornacchia indicated the County has concerns with Eugene's general annexation policy. Mayor Miller felt that a late July meeting between the Eugene and Springfield councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners to discuss annexations and urban transition could improve communication on these issues. Ms. Schue suggested involving Lane Council of Governments as a neutral party, and said an informational meeting may be effective but she doubted that solutions would be reached at such a meeting. Mr. Rutan questioned the value of a joint session and said he preferred discussing specific issues with commissioners. Mr. Holmer felt the issues are between the County and Eugene and he saw little reason to involve Springfield. He recommended holding a meeting before the Legislature adjourns. Mr. Boles agreed and said that July would be too late for the meeting. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 2 e II. APPOINTMENTS: MAYOR'S NOMINATIONS TO THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE ON MAYOR/COUNCIL COMPENSATION Mayor Miller presented his nominations for appointments to the Citizen Committee on Mayor/Council Compensation, which has been directed to study whether the Mayor and City Councilors should be compensated and, if so, to determine what the compensation should be. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the following nominations to the Citizen committee on Mayor/Council Compensation: - Carolyn Dozois, 2310 Adams...... ..........(at-large position) Jan Gund, 1670 Lorane Highway.............(at-large position) Phil Kessinger, 2215 Cal Young Road.......(at-large position) Robert Adair, 3464 Bardell Street.........(business community) George Platt, 2667 Fairmount Boulevard....(University of Oregon) Gretchen Miller, 1036 Adams Street....... .(former Eugene City Councilor) Betty Smith-Olson, 302 Spyglass Drive.....(former Eugene City Councilor) Ed Cone, 2310 Olive Street................(former Eugene Mayor) Gus Keller, 1125 East 23rd Avenue.........(former Eugene Mayor) Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. III. RESOLUTION TO AWARD SALE OF BANCROFT BONDS City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Warren Wong, Finance Division, reported that bids were opened at 10 a.m. in Portland and eight bids were received. The low bid was from US National Bank, for 6.49 percent. Mr. Wong said this is an AA-rated General Obligation Bond. Res. No. 4122--A resolution accepting a bid for the purchase of Eugene, Oregon, General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1989-L, and directing delivery and sale thereof. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Holmer announced his intention to abstain from voting. The resolution stated that "Whereas, several bids having been received and considered, copies of each of which are attached hereto, and the council deems it desirable that the responsible bidder offering to purchase said bonds at the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 3 e lowest true interest cost to the City of Eugene be accepted. . II Mr. Holmer said that because copies of the bids were not attached to the resolution, he had not had an opportunity to review them and to make a sufficiently informed decision about whether to accept the bid. Mr. Wong responded that copies of all eight bid documents were available, but only that of the winning bid was attached to the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried 5:0:1, with Councilor Holmer abstaining. IV. COMMUNITY RESPONSE TEAM City Manager Mike Gleason explained that during the review of the FY90 Proposed Budget, he had proposed the formation of a Community Response Team consisting of a special police unit working in cooperation with local social service agencies. Tentative approval was given to the proposal with the request that a program description and budget be provided for council review. e A team representing White Bird Clinic, the Mental Health Division, the County Corrections Program, school districts 4J and Bethel, Looking Glass Youth and Family Services, Buckley House, the Joint Social Service Fund, the City of Eugene Department of Public Safety, the University of Oregon, and the County Youth Development Commission has been meeting to develop and agree on the details of the Community Response Team (CRT). Mr. Gleason described the Team as a new, comprehensive way of responding to complex community problems that helps focus resources and that will enhance the safety and comfort of the public in targeted areas of the city. A. Program Goals Statement Mr. Gleason directed councilors' attention to a set of draft goal statements included in the agenda packets and encouraged additional input in completing this base for program evaluation. He emphasized that the program's intent is not to provide an ultimate solution but to develop a networking system and a process for seeking solutions. B. CRT Program Budget Mr. Gleason reviewed the summary budget, which included a $36,000 General Fund contribution in FY89. This appropriation will establish the police component of the team. The FY90 General Fund contribution will be $150,000. The proposed Buckley House construction will double the area's detoxification capacity, which Mr. Gleason described as a critical element in the intervention aspect of the program. The County will contribute $33,333 to the FY90 budget from its community corrections fund. This will support expanded detox services for four months. The County hopes to annualize this amount should the program continue. A contingency account is budgeted at e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 4 ~ $27,000 and Mr. Gleason said this would enable the program to address some of the additional needs he anticipated would arise. Mr. Boles asked about the evaluative strategy for the program. He recommended that sources of long-term funding (beyond the "summer experiment" phase) be identified soon. Responding to Mr. Boles's question about evaluative strategy for the program, Mr. Gle~son said an evaluation team has worked to identify the program1s goals and objectives and is addressing methodology q~estions now. He illustrated the difficulty of measuring the program's success by asking whether an increase in the incidence of reported crime would indicate that the program has succeeded or failed. While the police component of the program will end in September, Mr. Gleason did not expect the program evaluation to be completed until October. He was concerned about funding the police component of the program from the overtime budget and said it would be impossible to sustain the effort year-round. He was hopeful that the Buckley House part of the program would be ongoing. Mr. Boles reiterated his concern about evaluation and stressed that indicators should be in place during the initial period of the program's implementation. Mr. Boles was encouraged to work directly with Dan Kaplan to develop measurable indices. Mr. Holmer volunteered to assist in that effort. Mr. Green inquired about the State's involvement in funding the program. Mr. Gleason responded that mental health money provided by the State is part of the program. Pending legislation could potentially provide some funding~ e C. Community Development Block Grant Reprogramming Request Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve reprogramming $100,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds from the Housing Rehabilitation Program to the Buckley House Rehabilitation Project. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. V. WORK SESSION: ANNEXATION AND SEWER ISSUES IN RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA Pat Decker, Planning and Development Department, reviewed the history of annexation policies in Eugene and other cities, the relationship of those policies to the River Road/Santa Clara area, and the options discussed by the council in October 1988. Ms. Decker said Eugene was not unique in the role that the extension of sewer, water, and other kinds of services or privileges play in the City's ability to control its destiny and to deal with urban growth. She cited Roseburg as an example of a city that gave up control of sewer services, found itself unable to control annexation and growth, and eventually bought a private water company in order to regain that control. In 1976, the Eugene City Council indicated concern about the relationship between urban levels of development and water extensions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 5 e Ms. Decker called attention to a map showing annexations to Eugene over a period of time. She reviewed the annexations of Bethel Danebo (in the 1950s and 1960s), the Willakenzie area, College Crest, and the Skyline area, and said that the Metro Plan, 1984-adopted Urbanization Report, and several technical reports form the foundation of the City's present annexation policy. Ms. Decker particularly noted pages 1I-D-3 to 11-0-7 of the Metro Plan as providing policy direction for the proposed annexation of River Road/Santa Clara. Mr. Holmer flagged for additional discussion the prerequisite of annexation to the provision of urban services. Responding to a point made by Mayor Miller, Ms. Decker affirmed that the Metro Plan implied that the city.s boundaries would extend to the urban growth boundary and that cities would be the providers of services within the urban growth boundary. Mr. Gleason added that acknowledgement of the Metro Plan was also a condition of an agreement with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Answering a question from Mr. Rutan, Terry Smith, Public Works Department, said between 6,000 and 8,000 acres are outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Decker said the triple-majority method of annexation was changed by the Legislature in 1987 and now allows a ~ remonstrance to be filed requesting an election. In September 1980, Ms. Decker said Lane County and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) reached an agreement, in response to a ground water pollution study, that the County would limit development until there was an action plan for providing service to the River Road/Santa Clara area. In 1982, the DLCD agreed to acknowledge the Metro Plan based on the assumption that River Road/Santa Clara would be included in the urban growth boundary and that a servicing plan would be developed with Eugene being the provider of those services. While the plan referred to timely provision of services and logical extensions, it did not require the provision of all urban services at one time. In 1983, Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County passed a joint resolution that resulted in a sewer service plan calling for a Federal sewer construction grant to assist with the construction of interceptor sewers in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Conditions of that grant specified a sewer hook-up schedule in order to mitigate the ground-water problem. The Urbanization Report adopted by the council in 1984 called for an incremental and voluntary annexation approach. At this point, Ms. Decker said two options exist for proceeding with sewer connections that will achieve compliance with a future connection schedule. The first involves council initiation of annexation of the River Road portion of the River Road/Santa Clara area, which could be expected to result in a remonstrance e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 6 e election. River Road residents would be informed that sewer construction will begin in 1990 and they would be presented with a choice of annexation and a full range of urban services or sewers without annexation. This option offers a package of incentives to ease the burden of sewer costs and annexation on property owners and would be consistent with existing Metropolitan Plan policies and would permit sewers and other urban services to be extended to the River Road area in the most cost-efficient manner possible. The second alternative discussed by Ms. Decker would involve the council's initiation of changes to the Metropolitan Plan and the County Service District Agreement and boundaries to allow connection to the sanitary sewer system prior to annexation. In this option, property owners would be assessed for 100 percent of the costs associated with sewer construction, street repair, and financing. New development would continue to require annexation in order to assure provision of a full range of urban services as increased levels of development occur. Mr. Smith commented that under the first option, staff would recommend enhancement of a tax differential proposal allowing River Road residents to continue paying their current tax rate for a period of five years following annexation. This option would provide additional benefit to residents in that it can be shown that sewers are less expensive with annexation than without. The second option would involve the City's operation of River Road/ Santa Clara sewers as a separate utility that would be entirely ~ self-supporting. Mr. Smith reviewed the background of the City's discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEQ. He stressed that a ground- water study conducted in 1980 found a significant ground-water contamination problem in River Road/Santa Clara only, with the western boundary of that contamination extending to the Southern Pacific railroad. Mr. Smith said ground-water contamination can confound Oregon land use planning when it does not constitute a health hazard. The Environmental Quality Commission has found that a health hazard does exist in River Road/Santa Clara, but it is of a different type than that found in the statute governing the Department of Health's health hazard declaration. e Mr. Smith reviewed the conditions imposed by the River Road/Santa Clara Sewer Facilities Plan. He said that document contemplated that annexations would be the preferred option (required) for achieving connections and that requirement would continue through 1990 and would not be waived until after that time. Communications regarding discussions with EPA have overly emphasized grant condition 10 (the connection schedule) which is only one part of what a city must comply with in order to be found substantially in compliance with the conditions of the grant. Mr. Smith called councilors' attention to a letter sent from the Oregon Operations Office in Portland to the Seattle Regional EPA Office with recommendations that included a new connection schedule requiring 15 percent MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 7 e of the collectors to be constructed by 1990 with connections actually achieved 18 months later. The goal of 75-percent connections by 1995 would still exist. Mr. Smith referred to a map in councilors' packets showing a proposed construction schedule for River Road and said that regardless of which option the council chooses, sewer construction must begin soon. Mr. Smith reported that the DEQ has sent a letter to the EPA supporting the City's request for an extension of the connection schedule. In addition, consideration is being given to the next step in enforcement actions regarding the sewer requirement, which could be in the form of a rule-making process or the issuance of an order to comply. Mr. Holmer expressed concern regarding implementation of a cease-and-desist order against residents outside the city limits. Mr. Gleason said we are in compliance with the grant, but in anticipation that the compliance schedule will present a problem, having a mechanism to deal with connections outside the city limits is required. Next, Mr. Smith reviewed a comparison of median residential sewer costs with and without annexation, pointing out an approximate $362 cost savings if sewering is obtained with annexation (for a typical $60,000 residential property in River Road). Mr. Smith suggested that the question "is the biggest problem with annexation sewers or is the biggest problem with sewers annexation?" is a key one. e Mr. Gleason described earlier council direction as being to attempt to make the tax impact to citizens already inside the city and to those being annexed as equal as possible. Major capital reinvestments will be required in the sewage treatment plant, and treatment of storm water will be equally expensive. Mr. Holmer indicated that it would be unwise for the council to overly restrict staff1s ability to persuade River Road/Santa Clara residents that annexation is the best course of action available. He suggested that some form of subsidy for a specific period of time may be an appropriate tool in that effort. Mr. Gleason noted that Parks and Recreation is a difficult problem in terms of equalization. Mr. Boles said it would be helpful to compare the numbers involved in extending the tax differential beyond the proposed five-year period and at both a 65-percent and 50-percent rate. He questioned the systems development charge not being applicable in the IIno annexation" list of costs in the projected median residential sewer cost. Mr. Bennett asked about the consequences of losing the remonstrance election in a council-initiated annexation and not proceeding with changes to the Metropolitan Plan that would allow sewer connection prior to annexation. Mr. Smith said this most likely would result in a finding of substantial e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 8 e noncompliance involving extended arguments and a postponement. Mr. Bennett continued by asking about proceeding with sewer-hook ups on a voluntary, incremental basis, and Mr. Smith pointed out this would make it difficult to contain costs. Mr. Gleason said that the DEQ as well as the EPA can take action if noncompliance is found. He expected that a cease-and-desist order may be issued that would prevent additional development in the River Road/Santa Clara area and possibly in other areas as well. He emphasized that the Metropolitan Plan responds to State statute and because its acknowledgment by the State is fulfillment of a statutory obligation, amendments cannot be made easily. Mr. Bennett said he did not support sewer hook-ups without annexation. Mr. Rutan suggested that additional options exist and said he disliked aspects of both options presently under consideration. Referring to mistrust on the part of residents, he opposed action to initiate an election. Mr. Rutan said the goal should be to develop a plan that encourages annexation while it is fair to existing citizens and the government of the City as well as to those citizens receiving sewer hook-ups. Mr. Green said he opposed sewer hook-up done in a piecemeal fashion and without annexation, and he encouraged the council to adopt a policy on which it can act. e Ms. Schue commented that an election would provide the data needed to determine where annexation is supported and where it is opposed, thus allowing the City to put together smaller annexations. Mayor Miller said while other options may exist, the mandate for sewer hook- up in the area requires that a decision be reached soon. He recommended that the two options be refined further by staff. He observed that sinking costs would be borne by the citizens of Eugene while the systems development charge would be assigned to those properties being annexed in order to achieve equity. He added that citizens must be helped to understand that regardless of their wishes, sewer hook-up will occur and it will be less costly if it is done on a larger scale. Mr. Boles said that available options do not include doing nothing. Answering Mr. Holmer's request for staff1s recommendation, Mr. Smith said council initiation of the annexation of the River Road portion of River Road/Santa Clara is the preferred option. He said staff would present additional information about costs, scheduling an election, and rationale for pursuing this option at a council work session on June 28. Mr. Bennett indicated he had additional questions about the issue and Mr. Gleason said it would be possible to schedule a special meeting if councilors e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 9 e e e wished. Mr. Holmer stressed the importance of councilors' continuing their discussion before meeting with Lane County and City of Springfield officials. The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. :';~ectf~ ~. Mic al Gleason ;'.~' .,." -- City Manager " (Recorded by Mary Feldman) mncc 053189 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 10