Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1983 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Dinner Session Tree House Restaurant 1769 Franklin Boulevard October 10, 1983 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor "Gus" Keller; Mark Lindberg, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Dick Hansen, councilors; David Whitlow, Assistant City Manager; Tim Sercombe, City Attorney; Jim Farah, Acting Planning Director; Tom Hayes, Jim Carlson, Terry Smith, staff. Mayor Keller called the meeting to order and introduced Mr. Sercombe. Mr. Sercombe said the first issue was the problem of the best way to provide urban services to the River Road/Santa Clara area. The second issue was the status of the incorporation effort with respect to River Road. The incorporation effort was spawned by HB 2521 passed by the 1981 Legislature. The incorporators have gathered 10 percent of the signatures of the River Road/Santa Clara area residents. The issue is before the Boundary Commission November 3 and 17. Mr. Sercombe referred to the distributed material: Analysi s e of Feasibility Study for Proposed City of Santa Clara and Analysis of Feasibility Study for Proposed City of Santa Clara, Executive Summary. He said the material was written in response to the referral from the Boundary Commission. The document was developed by staff of several different departments within the City. Mr. Sercombe said the elements of the first issue are the relationship of the Metropolitan Area General Plan to the incorporation effort. There are policies and guidelines within the General Plan that deal with the incorporation issue. The Metropolitan Area General Plan says the cities are the logical providers of urban services in the urban and urbanized areas around the cities. The Metro- politan Plan requires Eugene to develop a sewer system for the River Road/Santa Clara area. The Metro Plan has policies about urban growth. Growth should be compact so urban services are inexpensive. The incorporation efforts are antithetical to compact growth and economic provision of urban services. Wednesday, the City Council will have the issue before them--a resolution adopted by the City Council of Springfield and which may be adopted by the Lane County Commissioners next week. It will put the City on record against the incorporation efforts in the River Road/Santa Clara area. The ~ecial Area StUd, is required by the ~lan. It explains how the full range of ur an serv1ces wil be provided in the iver Road/Santa Clara area. The first phase of the study is the sanitary sewage disposal. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session October 10, 1983 Page 1 Mr. Sercombe answered the question: Why is this incorporation issue important e to Eugene? One reason is the efficiency of providing urban services. There is a decline in the tax dollar. The provision of sewers to the area is a metro- politan issue. If the new city were to form, it would not have the funds to provide sewers or police. There would be a duplication of administrative services. Mr. Sercombe said it was a metropolitan issue because limited grants would go to the area and limited revenues could be collected to provide the services. If the River Road/Santa Clara area spends its money unwisely, it will affect Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. The second issue is what will happen if the city forms. It will mean that the Metropolitan Plan that took five years to develop and is newly acknowledged by the State will be in limbo. It will require a long amendment to the plan. This will take staff time and resources. It will require a larger urban reserve in another area and force the City to provide services in the new residential area. Mr. Lindberg asked if that was because the proposed city could not provide services as quickly as needed and would push development into Willow Creek. Mr. Sercombe explained the formation of a city takes time. It would require several years before Santa Clara could bond capital intensive projects. He explained that presently there was a moratorium on septic tanks in the River Road/Santa Clara area. A house is only allowed on 1.3 acres. With a sewer system, it could be more densely populated. The annexation process would provide sewer service faster than the incorporation process. Mr. Farah added that Eugene would not have the planning certainty that it has had since e acknowledgement. Mr. Sercombe noted that the new proposed city area in the Metro Plan is primarily residential. In order to support a city, it would have to expand its industrial and commercial base. The most likely area of expansion is west of the industrial triangle area. The last issue was the degradation of the quality of life. If one part of the metro area suffers, it affects the other part. Mr. Lindberg said if the last point is correct, Eugene should look at its pockets of poverty. Mr. Hansen asked what the benefits were to the citizens of Santa Clara. Mr. Sercombe said in incorporation vs. annexation, the benefit of incorporation is that it will allow the provision of police services to the entire area more quickly than a gradual annexation. With the defeat of the Sheriff's levy, they have only State Police protection. Mr. Sercombe said the City is preparing an application to EPA for financing the trunk sewer system. If the incorporation continues, the grant could be denied. It is a grant for $7.5 million. Mr. Hayes referred to the document River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. He said the council, along with Springfield, could pass the joint resolution on the grounds of 1) the Metro Plan; 2) the stipulated agreement e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session October 10, 1983 Page 2 between Lane County and the State to provide sewers has been held in abeyance by e the formation of the Metro Plan and the servicing plan within it. Another prime stimulus for proceeding with the servicing plan was the $7.5 million grant. Another reason was to coordinate with the T-2000 Plan and the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. Mr. Hayes reviewed the history of public partici- pation in the process and of the joint resolution as outlined in the distributed material. He said that a policy committee of Councilors Ball and Holmer, Commissioners Ivey and Lieuallen, and Springfield Councilor Chris Larsen, had been meeting weekly. Mr. Hansen asked if the City had $7.5 million now. Mr. Hayes said Eugene was on a priority list and going through a preliminary design process. In September 1984, they hope to apply for final plans. Mr. Smith added that Eugene was seventh on a priority list. If the State gets the money from the Federal government and Eugene goes into the queue with an acceptable application, then Eugene will have the money. It will take a large effort to prepare the documents necessary by September 1984. The key issue is that EPA's public posture is that they will stop Federal grants after 1985. The grant application includes not just technical analysis of how to provide sewer service or technical analysis of financing, but also includes a description of the legal authority of how to make use of what is built. That authority becomes clouded by the incorporation effort. If the City of Santa Clara were to form, it would be extremely unlikely that Santa Clara could acquire the Federal grants by 1985. The problem would be the $2.5 million matching funds necessary. Mr. Hayes referred to the time lines and the description of the Citizen Advisory Team in the distributed material. He said the Citizen Advisory Team will have a meeting in Santa Clara on October 11- Staff has done a mail out to households in the Santa Clara area. They plan e a workshop on the documents and work so far. They hope to explore alternatives. In January, there will be a public hearing on the final alternatives selected. The Citizen Involvement Committee and the Planning Commission are also involved. Members discussed the IIno-build" alternative. It would be a maintenance program for septic tanks and would cost $13 million over the next 20 years. The Citizens Advisory Team recommended short-term solutions to provide police protection in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Mr. Hayes referred to the Executive Summary of the Analysis of Feasibility Study for Proposed City of Santa Clara. II. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED CITY--FARAH, CARLSON Mr. Farah referred to the five-page summary and the 50-page Analysis of the Feasibility Study for the Proposed City of Santa Clara, which was a response to the request by the Boundary Commission staff. The 20-page feasibility study was submitted to the Boundary Commission. Since the Metro Plan acknowledgement, the Boundary Commission has annexed over 200 acres to the City of Eugene in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Incremental- voluntary annexation is working. Mr. Farah referred to page 28, Table 1, of the analysis, IIper Capita Expenditures by Category," which compared the service e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session October 10, 1983 Page 3 costs estimates by the new city, Eu~ene staff, and the Bureau of Governmental Research. Mr. Lindberg asked for flgures "if Eugene were to provide urban e services to the area." Mr. Farah reviewed the ways Eugene could provide the sewers in the most efficient manner. Mr. Sercombe and Mr. Farah said the range of urban services mandated to be provided within a city is outlined in the Metro Plan and by State law and therefore is not a debatable topic. Mr. Farah said that to the residents, police protection is the major issue. He did not believe self-determination was the major issue. People want urban services, he said. Mr. Farah referred to the summary. He stressed that no matter how it is done, adding urban services is costly, even to a "no-growth" city. The feasibility study estimated $4.63/1000; Eugene staff estimated a minimum of $13.52/1000 and with full funding (capital facilities) maximum $23.81/1000 assessed value. Mr. Lindberg said people fear the cost of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Mr. Farah said the councilors need to communicate that the process will occur over a very long time. Mr. Smith said 70 percent of Santa Clara is now curbed as part of the subdivisions. Mr. Carlson said Eugene does not have an agressive policy for sidewalks on neighborhood streets. Mr. Farah referred to page 2, 11.2 and 3. He said the Park District in River Road would have to expand park capacity. Provision for water and electricity would be from EWEB (owned by the City of Eugene). These costs will erode the $4.63/1000 figure. Mr. Carlson said EWEB is owned by the citizens of the City of Eugene. It has served the River Road/ Santa Clara area. The area could form a separate electrical utility, but would have to buy the present facilities. Water is more difficult. The City Council has kept the right to control the water supply. They vote on water extensions. The water is reserved for the citizens of the City of Eugene. It was assumed e that the River Road/Santa Clara citizens would one day be the citizens of Eugene. Mr. Lindberg asked if EWEB thought this. Mr. Farah said it was pointed out by the EWEB staff itself. It is in the charter and is quite clear. Mr. Farah discussed the cost of police to the new city, pages 8 and 13 in the feasibility study and the discrepancies of what is needed versus what is proposed. Finally, Mr. Farah noted that the feasibility study does not provide for capital assets needed by the new city. Mr. Farah talked about the negative impact on the Metropolitan Plan. He stressed the importance of getting service to the area. Mr. Smith said the incorporation effort resulted in the design of the most cost-efficient sewer system. He explained the design using plastic pipes under 15 inches in diameter. Mr. Sercombe noted November 3 and 17 for the public hearing before the Boundary Commission. If the Boundary Commission votes incorporation down, that ends the process. There could be an appeal. If the incorporation succeeds before the Boundary Commission, it goes to the County Commissioners for'an election (May 1984). This Wednesday, the City Council will vote on the resolution. Members thanked the staff for their excellent presentation. 7:10 p.m. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session October 10, 1983 Page 4