Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/29/1990 Meeting (2) e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Sousa Room--Community Conference Center May 29, 1990 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Emily Schue, Robert Bennett, Ruth Bascom, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mayor Jeff Miller. The adjourned Eugene City Council meeting of May 23, 1990, was called to order by Council President Emily Schue. I. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of March 14, April 18, 1990, Lunch/Work Sessions; and April 23, 1990, Council Meeting B. Call for Public Hearing--Initiation of Alley Vacation Request by the Eugene Clinic (AV 90-2) Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the, items on the City Council Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. II. POSTPONEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING ON EWEB STREET AND ALLEY VACATION TO JULY 9, 1990 Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to postpone the public hearing on the vacation of the street and alley right-of-way for the Eugene Water and Electric Board to July 9, 1990. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS REGARDING APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS FOR RIVER ROAD SEWER CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NOS. 2514, 2515, and 2516) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Terry Smith, Public Works Department, reported that one of the improvement districts under consideration encompasses the 1990 construction areas, generally known as Basins A, B, and C; and the other district includes areas adjacent to MINUTfS--fugene City Council May 29, 1990 Page 1 . e - existing sewers not previously assessed. Actions available to the council are approval, nonapproval, postponement of action, or modification of the boundaries of the district. Ordinances allow for remonstrance on projects such as this one, but only 260 properties, out of nearly 1,500 being served, sent in petitions, which is an insufficient number for a remonstrance override by the City Council. Mr. Smith pointed out that vacant properties are excluded. Separate actions following approval of the improvement districts will include assessment hearings before the Hearings Official for those properties which already have sewers (expected to occur in July), and again when sewer construction is completed and service is available in the new area (expected in February 1991). In both cases, the first payment would be due in March 1991 . Mr. Smith reviewed the groundwater pollution problem in the area. A 1971 study found significant contamination of the groundwater in River Road/Santa Clara. That study was criticized because it was conducted during a period of low rainfall. A more extensive 1979 study again showed significant contamination. Mr. Smith said this contamination could be attributed to the facts that approximately 2-4 million gallons of sewage enter the ground daily in an area of approximately 7 square miles; the soils in the area are well-drained and septic tanks work, but by their very design, such large numbers of septic tanks cause the contaminants to move very quickly without treatment into the groundwater. Mr. Smith explained that assessments for the project are based on lot area because larger lots may subdivide and make greater use of the sewer system and achieve greater benefit. The City assessment ordinance limits the assessment to the first 160 feet of lot depth. 80th these methods are commonly used by other cities. Mr. Smith pointed out that regardless of the method used, the average cost will remain the same, making this appear to be the most equitable way to distribute the cost of sewers. Mr. Smith showed several slides to illustrate how costs have been reduced to 65 percent of the original estimate. He compared the costs of this project to those of four mandated projects constructed between 1976 and 1983 in similar neighborhoods in Portland. Mr. Smith explained that the City of Eugene has developed a financing program to ease the burden on individual property owners that includes: 1. ten-year financing with an interest rate dependent on the sale of bonds (expected to amount to eight to nine percent); 2. State Revolving Loan Fund with a three-percent interest rate; and 3. five deferral programs for a) elderly low-income; b) state hardship deferral; c) payment extension; d) low-income; and e) large payment deferral. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1990 Page 2 e e e Ms. Schue called for any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. None were declared. The staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Ms. Schue opened the public hearing. Robert Ackerman, 186 Harvey, spoke on behalf of several property owners. He said that his understanding was that the pollution control tax credit could not be obtained if one financed the sewer hook-up. Mr. Ackerman asked the council to defer action until the deferral programs mentioned by Mr. Smith exist as City ordinances. He questioned the City's ability to assess residents for sewers when hook-up can only be required by action of the Hearings Official. Mr. Ackerman objected to financing the project through revenue bonds when River Road residents are not allowed to vote in City elections. Finally, Mr. Ackerman asked the council to contribute an amount toward the project at least equal to that which it was willing to give to Rohr Industries to encourage that company to locate here. Doug Wade, 126 Arbor Drive, asked which government agency is requiring sewers to be installed. He wondered whether the council would accept or override a remonstrance petition signed by the majority of residents in a particular basin. Mr. Wade asked how much the City would have to repay if sewers are not hooked up in the River Road area. Joseph Barnett, 1425 lake Drive, reported that the sewer has already gone in on his street. He said that he had lived in several other communities where sewer hook-up assessments were not based on square footage but on front footage, which he considered a more fair method. Michael Carmickle, 710 Nadine, represented the Plumber and Steamfitters Union. He inquired about the efforts made to obtain lowers bids for the project and about whether the successful bidders would be paying prevailing wages. Mr. Carmickle asked what provisions had been made regarding work stoppages due to labor disputes and how the contractors' completion of the work had been ensured. Finally, he suggested that River Road residents may be better able to undertake the sewering project than the City of Eugene. Yaqin Sliwinski, 109 East Hillcrest, discussed the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant's process for treating sewage and claimed that system is responsible for more contaminants entering the Willamette River than are the septic systems used by River Road residents. Rudolph Malnar, 792 Meriau Lane, asked about the bid for the project when the main sewer line was installed in River Road in 1987-88 and said that his assessment had increased from .23 cents to .39 cents per square foot. Dudley Foulk, 793 Blackfoot Avenue, opposed the sewer. Joseph Barnes, 1287 North Park, declined to speak. Marie Gray, 353 Knoop lane, suggested that a board be established to represent River Road residents in matters pertaining to the improvement districts. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1990 Page 3 e Jim Hale, 4064 Meredith Court, identified himself as a Santa Clara resident. He expressed doubt that the Environmental Protection Agency grant would have to be repaid if the City failed to meet the sewer connection schedule and disputed the claim that a groundwater contamination problem exists. Mr. Hale urged the council to delay action until and unless the Metro Plan is amended to allow sewer hook-up without annexation. Ed Kashin, 150 Knoop Lane, maintained that if the sewer and annexation issues had been separated earlier, River Road residents would have been more likely to accept the sewer project and it would have cost them less to hook up. He opposed having to pay for the interceptor portion of the project that has already been completed. Edward Webb, 896 Fremont, asked why the project should be done at all, why now, and why this way? He objected to sewers because they would interfere with his right to recycle. He did not believe the City of Eugene has the right to require residents to hook up. Bernadette Bourassa, 541 Knoop, complained of a lack of public notice concerning the public hearing. She maintained that residents would be forced to sell their homes to avoid foreclosure as a result of sewer assessments. Ms. Bourassa supported alternative methods of handling waste and observed that transporting chlorine to be used in the treatment of waste at large facilities in itself poses a significant hazard. e Tom Heintz, 1038 Jayne Street, opposed both the sewer project and annexation. James Jeppesen, 1883 Labona Drive, considered the project unfair in its method of assessment according to lot size. Bill Sokol, 240 Sunnyside Drive, opposed the improvement district because this district lacks representation and because of the method of assessment. David Shulda, 2139 Berwin lane, said that the April 11 meeting at North Eugene High School led him to believe that he would not be assessed and required to hook up to the sewer unless the Metropolitan Area General Plan was amended. Mr. Shulda believed that most plumbers would require a deposit before they would begin work and full payment upon completion. Virginia Rice, 840 Park Avenue, identified herself as one of many senior citizens who would suffer as a result of the sewer project. John Hamilton, identified himself as a 96-year-old resident who opposed the sewer project and questioned the right of the City of Eugene to be in his territory. George Buckley, 151 Elkay, maintained that River Road residents have sewage treatment systems in their backyards and he was not convinced that larger e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1990 Page 4 e e e systems, such as the treatment facility, would be an improvement. Mr. Buckley warned the City that expensive lawsuits and class action suits should be expected if it proceeds with the project. Jim Drake, 1245 Elkay Drive, said that the original estimate on his property was $19,400 and now appeared to be over $16,000, and he did not know how he would pay. Vivien Friendly, 1147 Park Avenue, said that she was unemployed and living on a limited income and would have difficulty paying her $12,000 assessment. She cautioned that if annexed, River Road residents would vote against City budgets. Roy Hartbauer, 1771 Linwood, commented on the lack of representation for River Road residents. There being no further requests to speak, Ms. Schue closed the public hearing. Responding to testimony, Mr. Smith said that a person financing the sewer hook-up would be able to obtain a receipt that would allow for a pollution control tax credit for $150 per year over a period of five years. He pointed out that the council has already committed to the large payment deferral plan and noted that the City has taken action that will result in a significantly greater reduction in sewer costs for River Road/Santa Clara than any community in Oregon of similar size or type. Mr. Smith maintained that the square footage assessment method is no more unfair than the front footage method because the average cost will remain the same. Because the interceptor was installed some time ago, financing costs accrued during the intervening period must be added to the overall costs of the project. While some plumbers may require advance payment, Mr. Smith encouraged residents to find one who only requires a deposit. Mr. Smith believed that County code will require hook-up because groundwater pollution is evidence that the septic systems are inadequate by design or capacity. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Quality have determined that the project is required, and repayment of the grant would probably be demanded. if the hook-up schedule is not met. He cited studies which indicate that septic systems have a significantly greater impact on groundwater pollution than the treatment plant has on the Willamette River, and that impact is more widespread than just the River Road/Santa Clara area. The high nitrate combined with high coliform concentrations of contaminants in the groundwater are a pollution pattern indicating a septic tank problem and cannot be caused by leaking sewers. Regarding public notice, Mr. Smith said that everyone in River Road on the mailing list was sent a newsletter that announced the public hearing and those properties within the 1990 basins also received a direct mail notice of the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1990 Page 5 I I t / e e e Mr. Smith acknowledged that the Metro Plan amendment process will not be completed when the council takes action, but he pointed out that the amendments under consideration are not required in order for the council to form local improvement districts. Les lyle, City Engineer, reported that the bid process involved advertising in the local paper and in the Daily Journal of Commerce. letters were sent to suppliers describing the types of materials the City was looking for. A prebid conference was held with plan holders and the bid opening was staggered to encourage additional competitiveness. Breaking the project into basins with three proposed for construction for 1990 made the contract bids more biddable for local contractors. Mr. lyle said that contractors are required to pay prevailing wages and to submit certified payrolls. A performance bond is included in the contract to assure that inability to complete the work allows the City to secure another contractor. City Attorney Bill Gary commented that the City's bonding authority allows it to issue revenue bonds without a vote of the people. While a constitutional argument could probably be made regarding a State statute authorizing the City to use its bonding authority to bond projects in a special assessment district outside the city limits, Mr. Gary doubted that such a constitutional attack would be successful. Regardless of whether it was successful, the existence of such a potential challenge, in the opinion of bond counsel, would not be likely to have an effect on the marketability of bonds that would be backed by the retainment of the assessments in the special assessment district. Referring to questions raised about whether a groundwater contamination problem really exists, Mr. Smith said that those issues are not within the council's control, but have to do with State policy on clean water that requires the Department of Environmental Quality to protect all beneficial uses for waters of Oregon and that forms the basis of the DEQ's requiring the installation and hook-up of sewers. Mr. Gleason noted that if the region is required to repay the Federal government the money used to construct the trunk line and the sewage treatment plant, whoever is required to provide the services demanded by the State will be responsible for that repayment and that cost will be borne by the people who are required to hook up to the sewer. He pointed out that because the residents of the City of Eugene are already hooked up, those costs would be paid by the residents of River Road/Santa Clara. Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Smith said that local improvement districts are not governing districts, are for a single project, and are without ongoing responsibilities once the project is completed. A board is not usually part of such a district. MINUTES--Eugene City'Council May 29, 1990 Page 6 e e e At Mr. Boles's request, Mr. Gary confirmed that it is possible to form a local improvement district prior to the amendment of the Metro Plan, and it would become effective upon approval of that amendment. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Smith said he was unaware of any cases in which the DEQ has gone to court to enjoin individual property owners. Several other enforcement options are available and have been successful in obtaining action. Res. No. 4180--A resolution initiating and ordering establishment of a local improvement district for sanitary sewers in River Road for Basin "A" (Project No. 2514), Basin "B" (Project No. 2515), and Basin "C" (Project No. 2516). Res. No. 4181--A resolution initiating and ordering establishment of a local improvement district for sanitary sewers in River Road area for connection to existing sewers. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to adopt the resolutions. Ms. Bascom commented that she was encouraged by staff's report that no foreclosures resulted in Multnomah County where project costs were higher than those for Eugene. She informed members of the public that the council had arrived at conclusions regarding the health hazard that differ from the opinions expressed during the public testimony. Ms. Ehrman emphasized that the formation of the improvement districts is intended to allow citizens to take advantage of programs to lower their costs. She expressed appreciation for the County's commitment of Road Fund money to the project. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. to May 30, 1990. R~.~~ ' (~y'?- Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Mary Feldman) mncc 052990-730 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1990 Page 7