Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/1985 Meeting --I - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber June 12, 1985 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten (12:30 pm-l :40 pm), Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller. The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie 1. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Carnival Equipment Councilor Miller asked for a staff report about the safety of eouipment at carnival s. e B. Neighborhood Clean-up Projects Councilor Ehrman noted there will be neighborhood clean-up projects in the next few weeks. She encouraged citizens to take part in them. She sai d the 7-11 Corporation has contributed to the projects. C. Hi ghway Si gns Councilor Hansen had been told that friends of a Eugenean had trouble judging the distance from the California border to Eugene because of the lack of signs indicating the distance to Eugene. He suggested the Oregon Department of Highways be contacted about signs on the highways. He said they should be put up even if the City has to pay for them. Councilor Schue thought the State Highway Department had agreed to put up signs about Eugene. Mr. Gleason said he would check out this issue and report back. D. Wall Street Journal Article Council Rutan said the recent Wall Street Journal article has had a positive effect and has spurred interest in Eugene. He has had several contacts with people in California because of it. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 1 E. Municipal Judge Evaluation e Mayor Obie said he, Council President Wooten, and Council Vice President Hansen will be evaluating the Municipal Judge whose contract expires June 30, 1985, and the process. He asked Ms. Ehrman and any other interested coun- cilors to assist. F. Announcements l. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Mayor Obie presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Governmental Finance Officers Association to Marilynne Musso, Assistant Budget Manager. Ms. Musso thanked Mayor Obie and accepted the award on behalf of the team which worked on the budget. G. Notification of Mayor's Appointment to the Bicycle Committee (memo distributed) Ms. Bascom announced that Mayor Obie had made the following appointment to the Bicycle Committee: Simon Priest, 2112 West 14th, to serve an indefinite term. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue to accept the mayor's appointment. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, e 7: O. H. Council Subcommittee Nominations to Aging Commission (memo distributed) Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue to appoint the following to the Commission on the Rights of the Aging: Ruth Koenig, 1237 Monroe term to expi re January 1, 1987 Theresa Taylor, 992 Fillmore term to expi re January 1, 1988 Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. City Council Minutes of April 22, 1985, and May 1, 1985, (minutes distributed) Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the City Council minutes of April 22, 1985, and May 1,1985. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 2 B. Finance Resolutions (memo, resolutions attached to agenda) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Finance Director Warren Wong gave the staff report. He said Resolution No. 3924 authorizes the issuance of $5 million tax anticipation notes to First Interstate Bank which submitted the low bid. The interest rate is about 5.6 percent. The notes are budgeted in the FY86 Budget the council will consider for approval on June 24, 1985. The notes will cover the cash flow deficit caused by property tax turn- over schedule. Mr. Wong said Resolution No. 3925 authorizes access to the City's bank accounts to Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, the City's new insurance carrier. Res. No. 3924--A resolution authorizing the issuance of tax anticipation notes. Res. No. 3925--A resolution designating those authorized to sign checks on behalf of the City of Eugene; authorizing automated clearinghouse debits; designating those authorized to sign grant appli- cations, bonds, contracts, etc., on behalf of the City; repealing Resolution No. 3872; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolu- e tions. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. III. COMMUNITY PRESENTATION CONCERNING BACH FESTIVAL Ms. Bascom introduced Royce Saltzman, Director of the Oregon Bach Festival. Dr. Saltzman initiated the festival with Helmuth Rilling, Artistic Director of the festival. Ms. Bascom said there will be three, free concerts each week of the festival. They will be at noon in the lobby of the Hu1t Center and will make the center available to all Eugeneans. She said Mr. Saltzman was one of the first people to see the potential of the lobby. Mr. Saltzman said this is the 16th year of the festival. There will be 32 concerts in the two weeks this year. One of the philosophical concepts of the Bach Festival is that it should be accessible to everyone. The tickets for the afternoon concerts at 5:15 pm are $1.50 for seniors and students and $3.50 for the general public. The orchestra, chorus, and internationally known soloists will participate in the concerts at which Mr. Rilling will conduct and lecture. This year there will be 15 evening concerts. The Eugene Opera and the Eugene Ballet will present children's concerts. The orchestra and chorus will present two concerts in the Hollywood Bowl. About 35 percent of the ticket sales for the Bach Festival are to people out- side of the Eugene/Springfield area and about 10 percent are sold to people outside Oregon, Mr. Saltzman reported. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Saltzman said Mr. Rilling is the catalyst for the festival. Hi s reputa- - tion has escalated. This year he will receive a Distinguished Service Award from the University of Oregon and congratulatory letters are being received from many countries. Answering a question from Mayor Obie, Mr. Saltzman said he initiated and continues to participate in the Bach Festival because it is satisfying to have a part in presenting the concerts, it provides an opportunity for choral conductors to study with Mr. Rilling, and it provides a cultural impact on the Eugene community. IV. ORDINANCE CONCERNING SIDEWALK VENDING BUSINESS LICENSE (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Susan Smernoff of the Eugene Development Department gave the staff report. She discussed the changes in the proposed ordinance that address concerns raised by councilors during study sessions. Referring to page 3, Ms. Smernoff said balloon vending was added to the food, beverages, and flowers that will be governed by the sidewalk vending regula- tions. Four alternatives for figuring the fees for sidewalk vending licenses were presented. In the first alternative the fair market value would be used, in the second alternative the potential income producing value of the property could determine the fee, the third alternative would involve competitive bid- e ding, and the fourth alternative would involve the cost of maintaining the sidewalks. Ms. Smernoff said the second alternative would be difficult to administer because it is hard to determine the income producing potential of property. In response to concern about the selling of flowers from private property, Ms. Smernoff suggested the council direct the city manager to prepare amend- ments to the commercial zoning district standards in Chapter 9 of the City code to address outdoor merchandising on private property. Sharon Rudnick of the City Attorney's office said Section 3.340 of the proposed ordinance should include a subsection (g) that will permit the city manager to adopt rules "regarding the form and content of the hold harmless agreement to be submitted by each vendor sufficient to protect the City from damage or liability.1I Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Smernoff discussed the competitive bidding system for figuring right-of-way fees. Vendors would bid for a specific spot. The city manager could set a minimum fee. It is difficult to know what the cost of maintaining the sidewalk would be. It could be very low and it could fluctuate. The City Attorneys agreed with Ms. Bascom that the seniority provisions in the administrative rules will have to be changed if the competitive bidding system is approved. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 4 Ms. Wooten arrived. . Responding to questions from Mr. Miller and Mr. Rutan, Ms. Smernoff said none of the license fee alternatives is similar to the mall regulations. On the mall in the summer, vendors are charged $40 a month plus $10 for each item. Only four items can be sold from each cart. In the winter, the fee is $20 a month. The vendors in the University area now pay no fee. They only buy a license that costs $45 a year. The vendors had indicated to Ms. Smernoff that a monthly fee for the 13th and Kincaid area that would be double the mall fee would not be unreasonable. Answering questions from Mr. Hansen, Ms. Smernoff said the fees in each of the alternatives would be adjusted on an annual basis. Referring to Section 3.342, Mr. Hansen said subsection (1) should read: (Bracketed material should be deleted and underlined material should be added) (1) In determining whether to grant or deny a license, the City [may] shall consider: Responding to a question from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Smernoff said the cost of cleaning and maintaining the sidewalks is now borne by the adjacent property owner. If cleaning and maintaining the sidewalks is chosen as a basis for figuring the sidewalk vending fee, an adjustment to the property owner could be considered. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Sercombe of the City Attorney's e office said the adjacent property owner does not bear the responsibility for injury caused by trash, such as a banana peel, on the sidewalk unless the property owner has allowed the trash to accumulate unreasonably. The proposed ordinance would not add to the liability. Mr. Sercombe said a property owner must remove snow from the sidewalks. Mr. Miller suggested the sidewalk vendors at 13th and Kincaid be regulated and charged like the vendors on the downtown mall are regulated. Discussing a memo he sent to each of the other councilors, Mr. Holmer said the proposed ordinance does not preserve and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the district. He did not think the sale of gaudy plastic balloons will add to the City's image. He said the proposed ordinance will endanger the public health, safety, and convenience. The sidewalk vendors use public sidewalks for private purposes that obstruct the passage of the public. The proposed ordinance is not fair to local merchants who pay the usual taxes. He suggested the competitive system for figuring sidewalk vending fees be approved, the sale of balloons from sidewalks be prohibited, and wording to assure that the City is provided insurance protection to the maximum liability permitted under state law be added to Section 3.338 (b). Mr. Holmer suggested the question of additional protection for councilors be considered. He said the City's policy should prohibit the use of public property for commercial purposes and sidewalk vendors should be required to get the approval of the adjacent property owners. He will vote against the proposed ordinance. ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 5 Ms. Schue favored a fee similar to the mall fee (alternative #l). She said it e should be modified because the market created by the University students fluctuates differently and is not affected by the weather as is the market on the mall. Answering a auestion of Ms. Wooten, Ms. Smernoff said a fee based on a fair rental value would be figured an a square footage basis. Mr. Hansen said the abundance of people in the 13th and Kincaid is generated by people's investments. He said the sidewalk vending fee should be based on a market rent. Sauare footage is not equitable in an open area. He favored a competitive bidding system. He suggested a set fee for 1986 with a first right of refusal. Ms. Schue favor a sidewalk vending fee based on a fair rental value. She said the proposed ordinance would permit the city manager to make the 13th and Kincaid fees similar to the mall fees. Ms. Bascom noted that the council had reached consensus on the distance side- walk vendors should be from similar businesses and the fact the spots will be allocated by the seniority system. CB 2831--An ordinance concerning sidewalk vending; amending Section 3.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding Sections 3.336, 3.377, 3.338, 3.339, 3.340, and 3.342 to that code; and declaring an emergency. e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill including alternative #1 to Section 3.340 subject to the comments of councilors be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Responding to a question from Mayor Obie, Ms. Wooten said the suggested change to Section 3.342 (1) was editorial and, therefore, included in the motion. Ms. Wooten said alternative #1 (fair market value) for figuring sidewalk vending right-of-way fees will encourage vendors to protect the public health and safety and will protect the interests of property owners and businesses. She said the greatest business attraction in the University area is the University itself. Therefore, sidewalk vendors should be encouraged as a convenient and lively way of life. Mr. Rutan supported the exclusion of balloons from sidewalk vending because the number of articles sold by flower vendors should be limited. Mr. Rutan moved to amend the motion to change Section 3.338(e} as follows: (Bracketed material should be deleted. Underlined material should be added.) (e) Sell only the food, beverages, or flowers [or balloons] designated on the license;- e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 6 Ms. Bascom had suggested balloons be included in the ordinance because they e are sold in other cities. She thought it would be a treat to buy a balloon from a pushcart. Roll call vote; the motion failed 4:5. Councilors Rutan, Hansen, Holmer and Ehrman voted aye. Councilors Bascom, Wooten, Miller, Schue, and Mayor Obie voted nay. Answering a question from Mr. Miller, Ms. Rudnick said the proposed ordinance contains policy direction and authorizes the city manager to determine the amount of insurance necessary to protect the City and the public from loss or damage. Mr. Sercombe said State law limits the liability of the City. The city manager will determine the amount that is adequate to protect the public. The amount may change from year to year. Mr. Hansen will support the motion with some hesitation. He would like the council to reconsider the sidewalk vending regulations in May 1986. He thought the City may give a better opportunity to make a profit to pushcart owners than to permanent merchants. Ms. Ehrman commented that the council had compromised and done its best to address the concerns of everyone. Mayor Obie agreed with Ms.' Ehrman. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:1; Councilors Wooten, Hansen, Schue, Bascom, Ehrman, Rutan, and Miller voting aye and Councilor Holmer voting nay. Ms. Smernoff suggested councilors direct the City Manager to prepare changes to chapter 9 to address concerns about outdoor merchandizing on private property. Ms. Wooten commented that she is only interested in limiting hazardous trans- actions across the public right-of-way and thought that was the intent of the revisions to Chapter 9. She did not want the revisions to make it impossible for people to sell flowers from buckets on private property. Mr. Rutan said would like the council to discuss transactions from private property on and across the right-of-way. Mr. Gleason said the staff will present options to the council. Ms. Schue hoped the staff will present information about how much selling goes on from parking lots and whether it causes difficulty Mayor Obie recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 7 V. CREATION OF A TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (memo e distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Long, Director of the Eugene Development Department, gave the staff report. He said the council had been informed about establishment of a planning committee to set up a tax increment district in the Riverfront area. Reviewing the Riverfront schedule, Mr. Long said the Riverfront Tax Increment Planning Committee will be appointed June 26, the Riverfront Park Study will be adopted by the council in late June or early July, a master developer will be appointed and the joint venture agreement with the Riverfront Research Park, Inc, will be reviewed in July, the master developer exclusive negotiating agreement will be approved in July, and the council will hold a public hearing and then approve the tax allocation plan in September. Mr. Long said tax allocation plans in effect before September 18 will not be changed if the State sales tax passes on that date. The staff will recommend that the tax increment district boundaries be the same as the Riverfront Park Study boundaries, Mr. Long said. The last scheduled project is the formulation of a financial plan and the City's role in the financial. plan. Ms. Wooten discussed the Tax Increment District Advisory Committee and said she would like two additional members. Ms. Ehrman agreed with Ms. Wooten's suggestion and recommended that someone e from the financial community be appointed. Ms. Schue agreed with Ms. Wooten and Ms. Ehrman. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. VI. ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Rich Weinman of the Eugene Development Department gave the staff report. He said the statement of objectives implements the first year of the three-year plan of Community Development Block Grants. It includes economic development, housing, and social service activities. Mr. Weinman said the statement of objectives was incorrectly advertised in the newspaper. It will be run again correctly. Any comments will be presented to the council. Ms. Ehrman said a large advisory group suggests needed capital improvements for social service agencies. Ms. Wooten hoped the administrative costs will be reduced in the future. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 8 Ms. Schue said the administrative costs have been a concern of the Community e Development Committee and the staff has been instructed to reduce the costs. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the FY85-86 Community Development Block Grant Final Statement of Objectives. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. VII. REVISED PROPOSAL ON SEWER USER RATES (memo distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Bill Guenzler of the Public Works Department gave the staff report. He asked the council to direct the staff to prepare an ordinance to promulgate the sewer user rates. Mr. Guenzler discussed three issues councilors had raised in previous discus- sions. The first issue was a regional one involving eight industrial customers whose sewer bills have been prepared individually. The Weyerhaeuser Company in Springfield may become the ninth customer in the group. Mr. Guenzler discussed the consequences if the eight or nine customers were placed in the most appropriate general category. He said the change is reasonable. He thought the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would approve the change if the City continues to monitor the effluent of the customers to be sure they do not dump material into the system that will damage it. e Discussing the second issue which concerned the inclusion of street sweeping charges in sewer bills, Mr. Guenzler reviewed the components of the recom- mended charge. They included $.57 for street sweeping, $.45 for new capital sanitary sewer projects, $.22 for the operation and maintenance of sanitary and storm sewers, and $.26 for inflation. Mr. Guenzler discussed an L-COG report that concluded that street sweeping is a water quality issue. He said the council had justified sewage rates long ago with concern for water quality. Discussing the third issue, Mr. Guenzler said $2,542,880 is the annual cost for the Eugene sanitary sewer system and $2,145,562 is the annual cost for the Eugene storm sewer system. It is appropriate to charge the sanitary sewer cost on a flow basis which will result in a local charge of 54t per 1000 gallons. To devise another method of charging storm sewer costs, the staff used generalized data from land use studies to predict runoff for residential customers and non-residential customers. The studies indicated that a flat $2.41 charge for each residential customer and charges based on the size of the water meters of non-residential customers would be appropriate. Statistics indicate that runoff is related to the water meter size of non-residential customers. Mr. Guenzler said the new method of charging for storm sewers is better than the old method. It corrects the large inequities, but some customers were under-charged in the old method and they will be charged more in the new method. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 9 Mayor Obie announced that the eighth item on the agenda, Discussion of LCDC e Compliance Requirements, will be postponed. Answering a question of Mr. Miller about water meter size, Mr. Guenzler said the projected costs for Eugene Linen and the Hilton Hotel were almost a perfect allocation. Mr. Miller was concerned about some customers who might be billed for more than their share under the new system. Mr. Guenzer said there are still some inequities although the new method is an improvement. The staff is concerned about some customers who have one large meter for both their domestic use and fire protection. A lot of water is needed for fire protection and so the charges to those companies might be high. The staff would like an appeal process to deal with those customers. If the charge is not appropriate, the appeal will result in a decreased charge. Mr. Miller was also concerned about companies that use a lot of water but have small proper- ties. He wanted a statement about that eQuity of the method in the ordinance. Mr Guenzler said some of the appeal process must be coordinated with EWEB. It will be addressed in the ordinance. Ms. Schue said some business owners may want smaller water meters when they realize the new method of charging. Mr. Guenzler responded that the existing data are good and should be used for figuring charges. If a person reauests a change in the size of a water meter, the staff will evaluate the account. If there is a good reason to reduce the storm user charge, it will be changed without changing the size of the meter. e Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Guenzler said the new capital projects in the local sewer charge will be for projects on Prairie Road and in the Bell Estates in the River Road/Santa Clara area, for interceptors in the Glenwood area, for ongoing rehabilitation of sanitary sewers, and for storm sewer planning and improvements. Mr. Holmer asked the staff to present a single family storm sewer/sanitary sewer charge for 7-1-85 to 7-1-86 that does not indicate an increase as well as the recommended $5.70 charge. Ms. Bascom shared Mr. Miller1s and Ms. Ehrman's concerns about storm sewer charges based on water meter size and wanted to be assured that the problems can be solved. Mr. Gleason discussed EWEB concerns and said the City will be sensitive to the EWEB data base and procedure. Mr. Hansen did not think water consumption should be related to sweeping the streets. He would not approve it. He reviewed changes in regional and local rates and said the proposed ordinance should not recommend a rate change. Ms. Wooten agreed with Mr. Hansen. She asked other councilors to think about approving a user fee surcharge just because there is an opportunity. She thought citizens should be given an opportunity to vote on a user fee surcharge. She said obtaining money for the budget and maintaining the streets should be done in an overt, rather than a covert, way. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 1985 Page 10 Ms. Ehrman was not sure it is appropriate to charge Eugene residents for ~ future construction in Glenwood. Mr. Gleason responded that newly annexed ~ properties are charged for past improvements to the central city. He said the proposed total charge is a reduction. He said the construction of storm sewers is underfunded by at least $1.00 per customer per month. The storm sewer system is important and must be designed and work as a system. Water does not very often back-up and flood properties because the system is well maintained. Mr. Miller had no problem with including a street sweeping charge in the sewer bill although it is a tax. He said the Federal government is withdrawing funds and the City must have money. He favored an honest statement that the charge is needed and can be called a user fee or tax. Ms. Bascom supported including a street sweeping charge in the storm sewer bill. She said there are many leaves and trash in her neighborhood. They will build up in the catch basins on the corners if the streets are not swept. Mayor Obie supported the staff recommendation. He appreciated the staff response to issues brought up in the public hearing. He was anxious to get the ordinance before the council. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to accept the staff recommendation and direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance implementing the proposal. Roll call vote: the motion carried 5:4; Councilors Bascom, Rutan, Miller, Schue and Mayor Obie voting aye; Councilors Holmer, Wooten, Hansen, and ~ Ehrman voting nay. VIII. DISCUSSION OF LCDC COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS--GOAL 5 (Pudding Creek) Mayor Obie postponed discussion of the LCDC compliance requirements. The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~.~ ~" _ f. Mi c ~al' Gl easo . ' City Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) 1 77 6C e MINUTES--Eugene City Council J~ne 12, 1985 Page 11 . e June 5, :985 TO: City Councll FROM: Warren G. Wong, Fin~nce Director SUBJECT: ~inance Resolutions The iollowlng ~wo resolutions are requlred ~o implemen~ the FY86 Budget and to modify banking relationships for the new insurance carrier. The resolutions are: , Approve lssuance oi S5 million oi Tax Anticipation Notes to First - . Interstate Bank oi Oregon. who submitted a low bid oi $290.750: interest rate oi 5.625%. 2. Au~horize first Interstate Bank oi Oregon to honor debits initiated jy Automated Clearing House ~o accomodate the claims processing by e Northwest National Life Insurance Company, the Clty'S new lnsurance '=~rrier. cc: :1. Gleason D. Whi How M. Albrich Attachments - 2 e -. e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES. The City Council of the City of EUgene finds that: A. On June 26. 1985. the City will adop~ a budget ior the 1985-86 fiscal year, and commencing July 1, 1985 the City will have ad valorem taxes levied and in the process of collection within the lim~tation imposed by Article XI. Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution in an amount not less than ~27,371.315.00. B. 7he City will experience a cumulative cash ilow deficit during the 1385-86 fiscal year of $5.000.000.00. C. It 1S in the nest interes~s of the City to borrow in anticipation of the taxes levied and in the process of collection ior the 1985-86 fiscal year by issuing Tex Anticipation Notes oi the City in an amount no~ more ~han t~e antlcipated ~~ximum cash ilow deficit. ~lus one month's expendltures. r-esulting in the cumulative cash flow deficit stated above. now. therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon. as follows: e Section 1. ~otes Authorized. 7~e ,.;ity shall issue a principal amount oi not grea~er than s5.000.000 of iax Anticip~tion Notes. Series 1985 (the "~iotes") pursuant to ORS 287.442 ior the purpose 0: :'.leet.ing current. ~y.penses. :~e Notes shall be dated with ~he date speciiied jy the City Manager, shall mature on June 20. 1'386, ~ryd shall bear interest ?ayaole at maturity a~ ~ rate to be established by the City Manager, which shall not exceed a net effective rat.e of 5.725%, computed on a 365-day bas~s. . Secti.on 2. Sinkinq Fund. The City shall establish a Sinking Fund for the Notes. The City covenants ior ~he benefit oi the holders of the Notes to deposit into the Sini~ing Fund all monies received by the City from its ad valorem property ~ax levy for fiscal 1'385-86. no!. including ~ny payments received in respect of delinquent taxes irom levies tor pr~or ye~rs. 110nies in :he SinKing fund shall be used solely to ~ay ?rinClOal and interest on the Notes. The Gi ty shall comtlnue to .moxe j~posits into the Sinking Funa until the Sinking rund holds an amount suii2cient ~o ~ay principal and interest on the ~otes at maturity. In determ~ning whether sufficien~ amounts have ceen deposited into the Sink.ng Fund, :.he City ~ay inc~ude interest to be earned on investments which have been made ~ith Sinking Fund monies. nonies 1n the Sinking Fund shall not be invested in instruments which mature after the maturity date oi the Notes. :\dditionai ~otes cannot be issued which w~ll have ~nv claim upon the monies in thls e' .. - . ,his Sinking Fund must ~e fully funded prior :'0 est.acl~shing ..J...nKlng :una. - ind ii~anc1ng any other slnking iuna whic~ 13 iundable from the 1985-86 .:10 valorem tax levy. Full Feith end Credit. The full faith and credit of e Section 3. the City of Eugene. Oregon are hereby irrevocably ~ledged to the punctuel payment of principal of and interes~ on the Notes. Section 4. Note Insurance. The City Manager may purchase insurance for the Notes from the Municipal Bond Insurence Association or irom the American Mutual Bond Assurance Corporation if the City Manager determines that such a purchase will be advantageous for the City. Sacti on 5. Purchase Contract. The City hereby accepts the offer of First Interstate Bank of Oregon. N.A.. as contained in the letter dated May 22, 1985. from ThollldS F. Mitchell. Vice President. a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference. including all the terms and provisions thereof. Section 6. TelllDorarv Note. The Notes herein authorized may be issued as one or more temporary Notes, which may be typewritten. Temporary Notes ahall be exchangeable for definitive Notes when definitive Notes are avail- able. Section 7. Execution Form and Denominations of Notes. The Notes shall be executed on behalf of the City with the manual signature of the ...,. ~ ~ The Notes shall be in the customary form and in convenient ,~~... y danager. denomin3tions. -- Section 8. Miscellaneous. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into any agreement. and to execute any aocumen~s or certific~tes which may be required to issue. sell and deliver the Notes in accordance with this Resolution. Dated this day of June~ 1985. City Recorder e ., e RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THOSE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EUGENE: AUTHORIZING AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE DEBITS: DESIGNATING THOSE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN GRANT APPLICATIONS. BONDS. CONTRACTS. ETC. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY: REPEALING RESO- LUTION NO. 3872: AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE. a Municipal Corporation of the State 0% Oregon, as follows: s.ect.! on 1. The First Interstate Bank oi Oregon, N.A., is hereby request.ed, authorized and direc~ed to honor checKs, draits or other orders for the payment of money drawn in the name of th~ City of Eugene, including those drawn to the individual order of any person or persons whose name or ~ames appear thereon as signer or signers thereof when bearing or purporting to oear the facsimile signa~ures of ~he Mayor or City ~anager and Recorder- Treasurer: e Ti~ Nallle Facsimile Mayor Brian B. Obie City Manager Micheal D. Gleason Recorder-Treasurer Warren G. Wong and the First Interstate Bank oi Oregon, N.A. shall be entitled to honor and charge the City of Eugene for all such checks, drafts or other orders. regardless oi by whom or by what names the facsimile signature or signatures thereon may have been affixed thereto, if such facsimile signature or signa~ures resemble the facsimile specimen duly certified to or iiied with the above banK by the Recorder 0% ~he City oi Eugene. Section 2. First Interst.ate Bank oi Oregon, N . .~ . . ~s designated depos~tory of the City of Eugene is reques~ed. 5uthorlzed dna directed ~o pay against the City of Eugene account number 65031-5 in ~uch bank, automated clearing house debits initiated by Northwes~ern National 33nk of ~inneapolis for ~he Deneiit 0% Nort~we5t. ~ational Life In~urance Company ("Comp.:my" ) in settlement of insurance ~lai~ cr~its :ssued '::Jy ~he Company on behalf of the City of Eugene. Section 3. Tha~ the City of Eugene does ~ereby adoDt t~e zacSlmile signatures above set ior~h as true and valid s~qnatures by and of the e City and agrees to save ~nd keep the said ~ank free and harmless from ,. e any and all ~ldims or losses of any kind or character resulting from the f=iayment. of the checks. draits or other orders bearing or ?urporting to bear such iacs~mile sign~tures made by stamp. machine or other mechanical device. Section 4. The City Manager is further authorized, pursuant to the City Charter, to sign and execute on behalf of the City of Eugene. grant applications. bonds. contracts. and other documents as may be required from time to time. Section 5. That Resolution No. 3872 adopted by the City Council Qn February l3. 1985. and any other Resolution in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 6. The City Recorder is directed to deli~er a certified copy of this Resolution to First Interstate Bank of Oregon, i'J..A.. ~ecti on 7. That the matters contained herein concern the public 'i/elfare. and this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 1985 and remain in full force and effect ~ntil amended or repealed by action of the City Council. The foregoing Resolution adopted the day of June, 1985. e. City Recorder e -. M E M 0 RAN 0 U M e June 12, 1985 TO: Eugene City Council FROM: Eugene Devel~pment Department SUBJ ECT : PROPOSED SIDEWALK VENDING BUSINESS LICENSE Background On April 22, 1985, you took testimony from citizens on the proposed Sidewalk Vending Business License. Given the amount of testimony, you discussed the recommended changes at the study session on May 22 and May 29. The one issue that remained unresolved at your last study session was how to determine the amount of right-of-way fee that should be charged to vendors. We have developed four options for your consideration. Alternative One: The amount of right-of-way fee shall be based on the fair rental value of the premises for which the license is issued, to be determined by comparison to charges for concession or lease of other City property or similar private property. e Alternative Two: The amount of right-of-way fee shall be based on the fair rental value of the premises for which the license is issued, to be measured by the income-producing value of the premises. Alternative Three: The amount of the right-of-way fee shall be determined by the highest offer after competitive bidding has occurred. The City Manager may reject all bids and charge a right-of-way fee which shall be based on the cost of maintaining the sidewalks, if that" fee would be greater than the highest bid offered, Alternative Four: The amount of right-of-way fee shall be based on the cost of maintaining the sidewalks, which sha 11 include repair and cleaning. Discussion To get an idea about what fair rental value might be, we talked to people who manage retail property that has high traffic volume. While the variables used to determine the rental costs of those properties may not be what would be used to determine right-of-way fees, the information provides parameters for the discussion. The following summarizes the research. Permanent Retail Space: One location charges vendors more per square foot than other businesses because all of their space is used to generate income, whereas other businesses have space that is used for traffic, e bookkeeping, and so forth. The base rent for vendors starts at $3 per square foot and can go up to $4.50 per square foot by the time fess for . maintenance, garbage co11ction, advertising, water, and utilities are added in. Other locations charge rents that vary from $.50 a square foot to $.85 per square foot, plus a percentage of gross sales. They may also pay for advertising, maintenance, electricity, security, and parking. Downtown Mall: The vendors on the mall are cha rged by the number of items they sell, with a minimum charge of $40 per month in the summer e months $20 per month during the winter, or 6% of gross sales whichever is greater. Public Right-of-Way: The City charges people who want to temporarily use the right-of-way. The charge is $.02 a square foot for residentially zoned property and $.04 a square foot for commercially zoned property. One example of property used in this manner is the construction trailer that is set up in front of the Ax Billy renovation project. There is no charge for use of the public right-of-way for sidewalk cafes. Alternatives one, three and four offer the opportunity to develop a model for determining a fair right-of-way fee. In terms of collecting the fee, Alternative three may not be feasible given that vendor carts are not design or intended to house a cash register that would be a record of sales. Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopted the proposed revisions to the Sidewalk Vending Business License regulations and select either alternative one, three, or four as a way of determining how the right-of-way fee shall be determined. Staff recommends that the City Council direct the Planning Department to amend the Commercial District Special Standards in Chapter 9 to address' vending on private property. - e -2- M E M 0 RAN DUM e June 7, 1985 . TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary Long, Development Department Director SUBJECT: CREATION OF A RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Background A committee was appointed by the City Council in the summer of 1984 to guide the development of the Riverfront Park Study. This committee consisted of members representing EWEB, Agricpac, University of Oregon, residents, property owners, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. A list of the committee members is attached to this memorandum. At its final meeting, the committee discussed tax increment financing as a means to provide public improvements for the proposed Riverfront Research Park. The committee agreed with the staff recommendation to use the Riverfront Park Study area as a proposed tax increment district. - Tax Increment Financing The Riverfront Park Study suggests that tax increment financing is an appro- priate means to finance the project. The study identifies existing conditions of the proposed area to be addressed by the tax increment district's goals and objectives. These conditions identified include: lack of adequate access and utilities, underdeveloped and undeveloped property; and areas SUbject to flooding. Based on 1984 assessor's data, a preliminary analysis has been done to determine the total assessed value in the proposed area as it relates to the 15 percent limitation in the State statutes. The State statutes limit a city to having 15 percent of its assessed value included in the frozen base of tax increment districts. The combined assessed value of the Central Eugene Project and the proposed Riverfront Park district is estimated to be about 2.5 percent of the City's total assessed value. There is also a similar 15 percent limitation concerning the amount of land used in tax increment districts. The combined total for the Central Eugene Project and proposed Riverfront Research Park Project is estimated to be less than two percent of the City's total land area. Thus, both land area and the assessed value would comprise only a small portion of the total capacity for the City to be able to do additional tax increment districts in the future. Tax Increment District Process The process to establish a tax increment district is initiated by the City's Renewal Agency (City Council). The City Council would establish an advisory e committee, a study area boundary, and direction for the study. It is recom- mended that the advisory committee consist of the previously appointed . CREATION OF A RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT e ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 7, 1985 Page 2 study committee as representative of community interests. The role and responsibility of the advisory committee is to review the existing conditions in the area and formulate goals and objectives consistent with policies recommended in the Riverfront Park Study. The committee will identify public improvements necessary to achieve the goals and objectives. Following that, the committee would formulate a financial plan based on project costs and tax increment revenue. That analysis would also show the tax increment district1s impact on affected taxing jurisdictions. This information would be put into the format of a plan and report document.. The plan would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearings. Once the committee is appointed, it is expected to meet at least four times over an eight-week period. Affected property owners in the study area would be notified and advised of the pUblic process. GL:RH:ky/Tb17. Attachment - - RIVERFRONT PARK STUDY COMMITTEE e Cynthia Wooten Ci ty Counci 1 Roger Rutan Ci ty Counci 1 (Member to be selected) Planning Commission Don Genasci Downtown Commission University of Oregon Barbara Edwards University of Oregon Campus Planning Team Dennis Solin EWEB Dave Pedersen Chamber of Commerce George Crispin Agripac Richard Chambers Property Owner Leslie Pearson Resident RH:ky/Thb7 e e RESOLUTION NO. e A RESOLUTION OF THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY CREATING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT IN THE RIVERFRONT PARK STUDY AREA. The City of Eugene Urban Renewal Agency finds that: A. The Eugene City Council has recognized the importance of the University of Oregon to the area's economic future, and realizes the economic potential in development near the university. The Council commissioned a Riverfront Park Study and appointed a study committee. B The Riverfront Park Study Committee completed its work by publishing a draft Riverfront Park Study dated April, 1985. The study recommends investigating tax increment financing of public improvements in the study area. C. It is desirable to reappoint the Riverfront Park Study Committee as the Riverfront Park Tax Increment Advisory Committee because of its expertise. The advisory committee shall examine the formation of a tax increment district and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on the district boundaries and financial feasibil'ity. -- D. The study boundary for the tax increment district would include the R iv e r fro n t Park Study area, and other areas the advisory committee finds appropriate under ORS 457.010(1). E. The a d vis 0 r y co mm i t tee s h all add res s cor r e c tin g b 1 i g h tin g conditions as defined i n ORS 457.010(1) consistent with the policies recommended in the Riverfront Park Study and incorporate its findings in its recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council in conformance with ORS 457.085. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, as follows: Based on the above findings, which are incorporated herein, the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency hereby creates the Riverfront Park Tax Increment Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on the establishment of a tax increment district in the Riverfront Park Study area. The adv isory committee shall be composed of the current members of the Riverfront Park Study Committee together with an additional member to be appointed by the Eugene Planning Commission. The foregoing Resolution adopted the 12th day of June, 1985. e Director Resolution M E M 0 RAN DUM June 3, 1985 e TO: Mayor and Ci ty Counci 1 ~ ~ . FROM: Eugene Development Department Staff ptuJ 1 SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES Background Annually, Eugene receives the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The FY85-86 entitlement is $1,299,000. A requirement of receiving these funds is the submission of an annual Statement of Objectives. The detailed Statement of Objectives is provided under separate cover. This statement was developed by the Interim Community Development Committee with assistance from the Joint Social Services Fund Budget Committee. Both of these committees conducted public hearings. The City Council provided clear direction by adopting a CDBG Three-Year Plan on March 5, 1985. This Statement of Objectives implements the first year of the plan. First Year of Three-Year Plan Economic Development (35%) $ 454,650 Housing and Investment Property Redevelopment (25%) 324,750 e Social Services (15%) 194,850 Capital Improvements (5%) 64,950 Planning, Implementation, Administration (20%) 259,800 TOTAL $1 ,299,000 Summary of the Statement of Objectives The Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) regulations require all projects to either benefit low- and moderate-income persons or to eliminate slums and blighted conditions. The selected projects were all tested against these cri teri on. The specific projects selected are listed below. Business Development Loan Fund $ 454,650 Housing and Investment Property Redevelopment 324,750 Social Services: 194,850 Whitebird Clinic--acquisition of medical clinic $ 65,000 Sponsors, Inc.--rehabilitation, accessibility 5,000 improvements Legal Aid--rehabilitation 46,500 Food for Lane County--facility expansion, food storage 13,500 Food for Lane County--food services to the needy 22,542 Lane Co. Di recti on Servi ce--Case .management for the 9,743 handi capped Community Soup Kitchen--food services for the needy 11,900 e Lane County Relief Nursery--child abuse prevention 11 ,900 Independence House--residential care for handicapped 4,900 John Collier House--residential care for handicapped 3,900 . . ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES June 3, 1985 - Page 2 Capital Improvement Program $ 64,950 Public Library--handicapped accessibility $ 46,950 improvements Berkeley Park--improvements 15,000 Scobert Park--improvements 3,000 Timetable for Implementation The final Statement of Objectives will be submitted to HUD prior to July 1, 1985. Development staff will then work closely with Facilities Department, Parks Department, and the social service providers to execute the projects. Social service non-capital projects will be managed by Lane County as a part of the Joint Social Service Fund. Action Approval of the FY85-86 CDBG Final Statement of Objectives. RW:pm/HC31b14 - . - '. May 30, 1985 e TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mike Gleason, City Manager SUBJECT: REVISED PROPOSAL ON SEWER USER RATES On May 20th, the City Council held a hearing on proposed revisions to the regional and local elements of sewer user rates. Based on concerns expressed during the hearing, Council' requested that the staff evaluate three issues. The first issue concerns the regional sewer rate as it is applies to industrial customers on the basis of monthly monitoring of effluent. As a regional rate issue this is one that must be resolved in conjunction with Springfield. The second and third issues concern the relationship between street sweeping and customer water usage and possible alternatives for calculating storm sewer portions of sewer user rates. These last two issues relate to only the local rate and may be resolved without concurrence from Springfield. Issue 1 The metropolitan area has only eight customers that are required to sample their effluent monthly so they can be sent a supplemental bill for extra strength sewage cost. If they were placed in the most appropriate General Customer group, what would be the revenue loss? e Could customers be contacted to determine whether the change was acceptable? Staff should coordinate with Springfield staff to deter- mine whether the change would be acceptable to Springfield. The staff of the wastewater plant monitors approximately 50 customers to ensure that their discharges do not exceed the levels permitted in the City Code concerning pretreatment requirements. This process assures that the wastewater flow does not damage pipes or disrupt the treatment process. Additionally, eight industrial customers sample their own flows and report . results to City staff. These data are used for hand billing by City staff (rather than EWES) for extra strength charges. By placing these customers in the group with general customers, the projected income would drop $30,000 a year. This would reduce the reserve at the end of the two-year period. We have contacted the industrial customers and have found that they would concur with the decision to assign them to this customer group. The Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulations that generally prohibit a class-to-class subsidy. EPA does not, however, require that cities specifically sample customers in order to charge them equitably. The staff has found that some cities group customers without sampling, while other cities charge large customers for extra strength based upon regularly sampled and tested effluent. Roughly speaking, it costs the City Sl,200/mo. to collect data and bill these customers. Additionally, these businesses invest considerable capital in equipment that lowers effluent strength. Moreover, the notion that these customers were each a special class, originated when there,were no other "mediumll or "highll strength customer designations. e It is felt that the cities now have justification to incorporate the industrial customers into the general customer groupings based upon extra- ordinary high cost of administration. ' ~ Page 2 e Springfield staff has been contacted and has indicated that this proposed change would have a minimal impact on their two industrial customers. It is proposed that this rationale be applied to establish a rate plan which incorporates the industrial customers in~o the general customer groupings. This rate plan would then be submitted to EPA as part of the two-year update process, where by EPA may give its reaction. Issue 2 Street sweeping has no relationship to the flow through a customer1s water meter; if sweeping were excluded from the revenue requirements, a local rate increase may not be necessary. Street sweeping is considered to be an element of storm sewer cost. Funding for this effort is currently allocated out of the general fund, the debris that is not removed from street surfaces ultimately finds its way into catch basins and storm sewers where it must be removed to avoid possible plugging of the system. In attempting to identify an appropriate increment of sewer rate to apply in the local sewer rate, consideration was given to those areas of need in the sewer system tha~ were either being met by general fund resources or were not projected ~o be met by a funding source. The table below gives a breakdown of the cost increase proposed as compared to the 1983-85 rate. Street sweeping rate increment would replace the current general fund subsidy. The increment for added caoital costs and increases in operating and maintenance costs and inflation would meet an identified need that would not be met without a rate increase. The local rate, adopted in e 1983, allowed for S744,000 per year for capital expenditure. Prior to that, large sewers had been cons~ructed with general obligation bonds supplemen~ed by a minor amount levied against land at the time of the annexation. The 1983 proposal introduced the concept of using sewer funds for sewer construction rather that selling new tax-retired bonds. Clearly, if street sweeping costs are eliminated there could be an associated reduction in the proposed rate. TABLE 1 RATE INCREASE FOR FY 1986-FY 87 7-1-83 to I For I Added I Ra; se I Inflation I Total I 7-1-85 I Sweeping I Caoital i o & M ! I I RES IDENTIAL I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I $4.20/monthl SO.S7 I SO.45 I $0.22 I $0.26 I $5.70/monl I I I 1 I I NON RESIDENTIAL I I I I I 72.6~/1000g I $468,247/yrl $364.225/yr 1 5169,053 I 5214,330 I $1,215,8551 I 9. 8<::/l000g I 7. 6CI1000g I 3.5C/1000gl 4. 5<::11000g I 98<:/1000gl I I I I 1 I e Issue 3 ihe testimony given at the May 20 public hearing included objections to charging storm sewer cost, particularly stree~ sweeping, to the water user. ., Page 3 The staff was requested to examine the current method for calculating e customer charges and identify alternative ways of billing for storm sewer expenses. It is proposed that the sanitary sewer portion continue to be charged to cust- omers on a flow basis. In other words, annual sanitary sewer costs of $2,542,880 be allocated over the 4,763,000,000 gallons of annual flow (on the basis of 54~/1000 gallons of flow). Single family residential customers would charged for 5800 gallons per month until July 1, 1986 when each residential customer would be billed on actual flows. The annual storm water costs of $2,145,562 should be charged on some basis that is more representative of the runoff from a specific customer1s property. Engineers typically calculate runoff with a formula using the area and a "runoff" factor. Data available from the April 1985 Neighborhood Analysis were used to estimate the relative share of runoff from land use categories. For example, the city contains 1920 acres of commercial property that sheds 70% of the rain falling upon its surface. Thi's constitutes 24.3% of the runoff water which the city must convey in pipes and ditches to points of disposal. Each land use category was examined to estimate its share of its total stormwater runoff. The results of that analysis are contained in the table below. Storm sewer expenses were then divided into $1,315,230 for non residential customers and 5830,332 for residential customers. TABLE 2 e RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS FOR DIVIDING COST BETWEEN CUSTOMER GROUPS Land Use Area(1 ) Runoff (2) ~~ Respon- Cost Distribution (Acres) Factor sib i 1 ity Assiqn. NON-RESIDENTIAL Commerical 1920 0.70 24.3% Industrial 1460 0.70 18. 4~~ Public (3) 1870 0.20 6. 8~~ Multi-family (4) 1040 0.63 11. 8~'; Subtotal 6290 61. 3~b $1,315,230 RESIDENTIAL Single Family 6130 0.35 38. n~ $ 830,332 Composite 12,420 0.45 100. O~~ $2,145,562 (1) Ap~il 1985, Neighborhood Analysis Addendum, Eugene Planning Department. (2) Design manuals of the Water Pollution Control Federation and Kramer, Chin and Mayo. Inc., Consulting Engineers. e (3) Public land was grouped with IInon-residentialll because most water/sewer customers on public lands are classed as IIcommerical.1I . Page 4 e (4 ) Multi-family was grouped as "non-residential" because most multi-family customers are now "commerical." The remainder will be made "commerical" 7-1-85. . Within the residential class, it has been found that the small variations between customers makes it unnecessary to calculate a separate charge for each customer. Therefore, the 5830,332 can be divided equally among the 28,747 residential customers at $2.41 per customer per month. Within the commercial (non-residential) customer qrouo, there is a great deal of variation in lot size and coverage. It is important then to have a method to calculate individual bills in some way that reflects runoff contribution from that specific property. Staff investigated the possibility of collecting data for the 4800 non-residential customers. Rough estimates are that data collection and programming cost would approach 590,000 to set up a billing calculation on the basis of runoff. Currently, EWEB sewer billing costs are about SI10,000/year. Bills are prepared using information available from EWEB records. Most of the expense is incurred by keeping customer history, handling customer contacts, making changes to accounts and handling transac- tions. If EWES were to perform the billing for the commercial storm sewer charge, the cost will range from 28~ to 75C per account per month for the 4800 customers. That is from 516,000 to 543.000 per year of added billing costs from EWEB in addition to the cost of city staff keeping the source data current. Time of implementation would be approximately eight months. e Upon the advice of CH2M Hill, the city staff investigated an alternative tech- nique used in other studies. It has been found that the size of the water meter is related to the size of the parcel served. TABLE 3 MAY 2, 1985 EWES METER SIZE DATA Meter Size Number Flat Monthly Charge/Customer Of Meters RESIDENTIAL 5/8" 28747 S 2.41 NON RESIDENTIAL 5/811 2217 5 12.05 I" 1224 5 18.08 1.5" 629 $ 24.10 2" 554 $ 36.15 3" 88 $ 60.25 4" 56 S 72.30 611 67 5120.50 811 34 5156.65 - 1011 6 5192.80 '. Page 5 Empirical data from 30 customers show that the typical commercial property e has a greater area as well as a greater proportion of its area committed to impervious surfacing than residential lots. The siz~ of the water meter can be used as an indicator of the size and intensity of use of a non-residential property for the purposes of assigning storm drainage costs. On the average, a water meter of a given size serves a commercial pro- perty with five times the storm water runoff potential as the typical single fami ly property. Therefore, it is proposed that a commercial customer with a 5/8" water meter be assessed five times the flat residential rate developed above (5 X $2.41 = $12.05). Large non-residential properties would be charged in multiples of the $12.05 depending on the water meter diameter serving that property. The schedule of charges is shown above. Data to make this charge are available in the EWES billing file. A sample of thirteen customers was taken by city staff to test the fairness of the revised schedule of charges. If data were available for the 4800 commercial customers, it is generally conceded that impervious surfac~ is the industry standard for allocation of storm drainage cost responsibility. Monthly charges to the thirteen customers were plotted on two enclosed graphs. The horizontal axis shows the amount a customer would be charged IF we had the data available to calculate the bill based upon area. The first graph plots the charge on the vertical axis based upon the amount of fl ow through the water meter. The di stance from the II Li ne of best fi t" indicates the error in calculating that customer bill. ' The standard error e in this sample was $176 per month. The second graph plots the charge based on impervious surface. Within the sample, the standard error is $61 per month. The average deviation from the ideai monthly bill 'would be reduced by $ lIS/month by revising the approach for billing. The improvement is statistically significant and therefore, recommended by the staff. - ~ ...., . Page 6 TABLE 4 .. ..." , ---' RECAP OF REVISED RATES REGIONAL (TREATMENT) RATES 7-1-83 7-1-85 11-1-85 7-1-86 7-1-85 11-1-85 7-1-85 7-1-87 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 56.30/mo 54.50/mo 54.50/mo $1. 61/mo + 50.50/10009 GENERAL CUSTOMER Low Strength $1.089/1000g SO.50/1000g 50.50/1000g $0.50/1000g + $1. 61/mo (minimum) 56.30/month 54. SO/month 54. SO/month 51.61/month Medium Strength 51.089/1000g 50.5011000g SO.71/1000g SO.71/1000g + 51.61/mo (minimum) 56. 3D/month . 54. SO/month 54.50/month 51.61/month. High Strength S1. 089/1000g 50.50/1000g 51. 14/1000g $1.14/1000g + $1. 61/mo (minimum) S6.30/month 54.S0/month 54.50/month $1.61/month -4 LOCAL SANITARY SEWER/STORM SEWER RATE RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1-83 7-1-85 7-1-86 7-1-85 7-1-86 7-1-87 SINGLE FAMILY Sanitary S3.13 SO.54/1000g Storm S2.41 $2.41 Total S4.20/mo. 55.54 $0.54/1000g + $2.41 COMMERCIAL Sanitary $0.54/1000g 50.54/1000g Storm S12.05 ea. 5/8" S12.0S ea. 5/8" see sch2dule see schedule T ota 1 (Loca 1 ) 50.726/1000g 50.54/1000g 50.54/1000g 54.20/month min. + 512.05 ea. + 512.05 ea. 5/8" equiv. 5/8" equiv. e ,f--' .. Page 7 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS .t--- I Direct the staff to prepare an ordinance implementing rates as identified on the Table 4, plus: 1) Eliminate the individual monitoring and charging for extra stength customers effective 7-1-85. 2) Notify multi-family customers that have not yet converted to flow dependent rate that, beginning 7-1-85, all multi-family customers will be on flow-dependent sanitary sewer rates. 3) Develop a notification and appeals process for the General customers that are to be converted from normal strength to extra stregth customers in November 1985. 4) Send residential customers notice in Fall 1985 that their winter flow will be used to calculate sewer bills beginning 7-1-86. 5) Consider amending the 7-1-85 to 7-1-86 Single Family storm sewer/ sanitary sewer rate to equal Springfield's charge of $5.70 per customer per month. wmsubill . ~ -