Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/1990 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council BJ's Restaurant--66 East 7th Avenue June 11, 1990 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Jeff Miller, Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Shawn Boles, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman (after 5:45 p.m.), Rob Bennett, Bobby Green. The regular meeting of June 11, 1990, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. Mr. Gleason requested that due to a lack of councilor availability the coun- cil move its discussion of the library siting issue to the June 27 meeting. In response to a concern raised by Mr. Holmer regarding the property owner's lease agreement, Mr. Gleason said that he did not believe that a delay of this decision until the June 27 meeting would pose a problem for the property owner. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to consider the library siting issue on June 27. The motion carried unani- mously, 7:0. Due to scheduling conflicts, Mr. Gleason requested council permission to deal with the Request for Proposal (RFP) for 8th and Willamette at the council's Process Session on August 6, 1990. The council offered general consensus agreement to this request. Mr. Holmer expressed concern with the extended period of time which has been scheduled for the City Council's recess. Mr. Gleason asked council for its preference of dates for the council's Goal- Setting Session. The council agreed upon October 26 and 27 as tentative dates for its Goal-Setting Session. I. ANNEXATION POLICY ISSUES Councilor Rutan provided an overview of the nature of the discussions which led to this agreement with members of the Industrial Corridor Community Organization (ICCO). He noted that it was made clear in the discussions that he was not negotiating an agreement on behalf of the council. The agreement represents a very positive resolution to a long-standing debate which has divided this area for some time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 1 e e e Terry Smith, Public Works Administration, highlighted the major concepts presented in this agreement. He noted that within this proposal, sewer service would remain linked to annexation but that the effective date of annexation would be delayed ten years. Furthermore, nearly all property owners in this area should be connected to sewers by the year 2000; annexa- tion of Highway 99 property owners would occur no later than 2010. Finally, a nine-year, 31 percent tax differential plan would be provided by the City upon the effective date of annexation. This would result in these properties paying the full City tax rate as early as 2010, but no later than 2020. Mr. Gleason indicated that because tax differentials are being provided to all industrial and residential property owners across the board, this agree- ment is fair and equitable to property owners in the area. Tax differen- tials are intended to help make annexation more feasible for those property owners who have developed outside the city limits, but who now need addition- al City services. It is in the City's interest to provide the tax differen- tials because the current septic tank sewer system is a legitimate public health issue. He emphasized that the City, in providing tax differentials, is not providing a subsidy as was characterized in The Register-Guard. Mayor Miller commended Mr. Rutan for his efforts in crafting this agreement. Ms. Schue urged caution that the part of this process which recommends review of the agreement by the Council Committee on Infrastructure (CCI) may no longer be appropriate if the CCI is abolished. Mr. Boles said that discussions which have resulted in this agreement have been productive. He noted that because the council did not direct Mr. Rutan to negotiate an agreement on its behalf, several members of the community have expressed the belief that the council plans to approve this agreement without revision or review. Mr. Boles also expressed concern that the use of staff time unauthorized by the council was in violation of a council policy. Ms. Bascom noted that because this issue has been a long-standing concern this resolution represents a tremendous success. Regarding the use of staff time, Mr. Gleason said that the staff work used in negotiating this agreement was authorized by virtue of an adopted council policy which directed the staff to customize these proposals for given areas. Mr. Rutan agreed on the importance of remaining sensitive to the use of staff time. He pOinted out that in total no additional staff time was required because staff time which would have been used in less constructive confronta- tions was supplanted by these open negotiations. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Smith said that the Lane County Commissioners have been informed about the terms of this agreement. Mr. Holmer said that this process has been productive. He pointed out that the council should not adopt this agreement until the public had has a chance to debate its components. Specifically, he expressed concern with the en- forceability of the agreement. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 2 e Mr. Smith reviewed the concepts presented in this agreement. He emphasized that within this proposal, all pieces of property were considered equal and were treated the same. The council proceeded with a discussion of the nine a greement components. 1. Annexation to Occur 10 Years After Sewer Construction Mr. Smith explained that the ten-year annexation deadline represents the amount of time it commonly takes for property owners to payoff sewer installation costs. Responding to a comment by Mr. Holmer, Mr. Rutan said that the ten-year time phasing period makes it more financially feasible for property owners to develop. Mr. Holmer remarked that for those property owners who choose not to hook-up to sewers in 2000, this actually represents a 30-year time lag until full payment of City taxes is required. 2. Seek Legislative Changes Mr. Smith explained that a change in sewer service policy to allow a 10-year delay in the effective date of annexation after sewer connection is being sought. This change could most effectively be accomplished by amending the Oregon statute. Of the two changes which are being sought, one would increase the delayed annexation process from the current one-year delay in effective date to 10 years. The other would provide for binding annexation contracts. e Addressing Mr. Holmer's concern for enforceability, Mr. Smith said that provisions such as a withdrawal of sewer services or other indemnification clauses should the owner refuse to pay are included as a means of ensuring property owner compliance. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Smith said that there is interest statewide in the approach which is being taken to encourage sewer hook up. This particular process has been proposed in past legislative sessions. Mr. Boles said that the council's current practice of waiving Boundary Commission fees in annexation proceedings would not traditionally be included in precursor annexations such as this and requested an estimate of how much money the City will relinquish as a result. 3. Most Property to be Sewered by 2000 Mr. Smith explained that the agreement would be written to ensure that nearly all property owners would be connected to the sewer by 2000; it is anticipated that most will be connected by 1995. Mr. Holmer pointed out that because of the public health concern raised by sewers, the council could use its authority, acting on behalf of the public interest, to mandate which properties must be connected by 2000. ~ Mr. Boles requested information on the number of total property owners involved in ICCO and whether this agreement is binding on those property MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 3 e e e owners who are not members of ICCO. Mr. Smith responded that ICCO representation and support for this proposal is virtually unanimous among property owners. Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Smith said that it is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) intention that this area is covered in its mandated connection schedule. 4. Sewer Provided at Majority Request Mr. Smith said that this is a standard procedure. It will be possible to make this agreement binding on successive property owners and subdivided property, as well. Mr. Boles said that the staff notes regarding Systems Development Charges (SDC) are unclear and should be clarified in the agreement. Mr. Smith said this would be a standard assessment process including all SDC components. 5. CCI Review of Effect of Lot Shape and Sewer Routing Referring to a point in the staff memo which indicates that the standard procedure for determining assessments might result in a high degree of inequity among land holders, Mr. Holmer urged that a resolution to this problem be found. Specifically, he suggested the possibility of using another method of calculation. Mr. Gleason pointed out that because residential landowners' needs for city services are different from industrial landowners' needs, the two annexation proposals vary markedly. Given these special circumstances, this specific proposal makes the most favorable agreement out of fairly limited tools. Mr. Boles said that it is incumbent on the City to demonstrate the advantages of the agreement to both parties and to show that the benefits derived from each are not disproportionate. 6. Repairing Septic Systems Mr. Smith explained that State statute requires property owners near a sewer to connect to the sewer and therefore annex if their septic systems need repair. Addressing concerns about enforceability, Mr. Smith said that the distinction between major and minor permits is made clear in the State administrative rules. Minor repairs include such things as broken pipes and cracked septic tank lids; major repairs include replacement of an entire drain field. Responding to a question raised by Mr. Holmer, Mr. Smith said there is nothing in this agreement which prohibits the City from negotiating special agreements with individual property owners. Therefore if property owners chose to annex immediately and pay the full tax rate, they could do so. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 4 ~ 7. 31 percent, 9-year Tax Differential Mr. Holmer raised concern that during the nine-year period of reduced taxes, the property owners will not be contributing to the cost of a refinement plan which is intended to benefit them. Mr. Smith responded that because this is a joint venture, the City hopes the County will help with associated costs. The City plans to negotiate for continued services with County and State police for sometime after annexation. He added that service demands are different for these property owners because most property owners have private security forces in place. e Responding to a question, Mr. Smith said that the operating levy amount changes over time with City tax rates. Once annexation has been agreed upon, the percent of operating levy will have to move with the levy of the taxing entity. Rather than allowing tax deferment for nine years, Mr. Boles suggested the possibility of a stepwise increase in tax rates. Mr. Smith said property owners felt the nine-year deferment period provides the greatest degree of flexibility needed to accumulate capital for new development. Mr. Bennett asked whether industrial landowners' general reluctance for annexation suggests that many find City taxes to be too high. Mr. Gleason agreed that heavy industrial users typically find the short-run financial constraints imposed by annexation to be prohibitive. He noted, however, that over the long run, it becomes more worthwhile to be annexed to cities than not. e Referring to the fact that developed and undeveloped properties are being treated in the same way, Mr. Bennett noted that some might argue that industrial landowners cannot compete under the same taxing constraints. 8. Airport Vicinity Industrial Refinement Plan Ms. Ehrman said that County participation with respect to the airport refinement plan should be made clear. Mr. Holmer said that the Southern Pacific Railroad should be included in both the agreement and the refinement plan. Mr. Gleason said that Southern Pacific Railroad is not willing to be included in the agreement, and should not be included in the discussion. He noted, however, that after a contract with ICCO has been signed, it is likely that the City will find new ways to encourage them to come to an agreement. Mr. Rutan emphasized that the practice of conducting refinement plans in advance of annexation has taken place previously in City policy. Partnerships which are formed as a result help defray the costs associated with this planning. Responding to a question, Mr. Smith said it is doubtful that the legislature will allow island annexation to occur using properties with delayed annexation to produce the island. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 5 ~ 9. Delay of Parking Lot and Sidewalk Requirements Mr. Smith said that this delay period attempts to address special ci~cumstances such as might arise in changes of occupancy in which the addi~ional costs associated with complying with City standards might prohibit a marginal development. In short, it is another tool which encourages more rapid economic development. Noting that the current parking lot and sidewalk requirements are considered expensive by industrial property owners, Mr. Holmer questioned why they would be required at all. He expressed an interest in extending this delay policy to similar properties City-wide. Mr. Rutan noted that the nature of heavy industrial uses is such that it does not require them to immediately come to the same standards. It does provide that they will be up to City standards by the time they are annexed. Mr. Boles felt that allowing this delay is unwise; the costs of meeting City standards should be borne at the point of development rather than annexation. Mr. Holmer suggested that before approval, the agreement should be forwarded , to the Planning Commission. If that is not possible, the council should at least provide an opportunity for citizen involvement. e Mr. Bennett said that the council should offer its conceptual support of this plan. Mr. Boles cautioned that because this is the first time that this plan has been subject to public input, the council should not reach closure on this agreement until both the community and the council have had several opportunities for review. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to accept that concepts in this report and proceed with refinements as needed. Mr. Boles urged the council not to support this motion. He said that while he supports the concept of having an agreement with the lCCO, he does not support all of the concepts laid forth in this agreement. Mr. Bennett said that while he too has some specific concerns with this document, the council needs to proceed with this agreement as it was negotiated. Mr. Holmer suggested that the motion be amended to offer council endorsement for developing an agreement with Highway 99N and ICCO property owners which might contain a tax differential and a fixed time for annexation and sewer connection. He felt that such a motion would be general enough to lead to an agreement but would allow for improvement upon the staff document addressing the problems raised by the council. ~ Ms. Schue emphasized the importance of making a public statement that the City is willing to negotiate an agreement with property owners to reach MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 6 e e e ~ -- "-. resolution~of a long-standing problem. This document represents a general outline of that agreement. Ms. Bascom concurred and added that implicit in her support for this proposal-ls the view that the City is a willing participant and supports activities in the entire metro area. Mr. Boles reiterated his earlier concerns and cautioned that the council has an obligation to the larger community to continue to negotiate for an agreement which will be acceptable to all. Ms. Ehrman concurred with the need for public input. Mr. Gleason said that the concepts set forth in this document would represent the foundation of the contract. If the council wishes, it can choose to hold a public hearing. He emphasized that this problem has been under great debate for over 40 years; its resolution has been a major council goal. Mr. Miller said that support for this agreement represents the council's attempt to be responsive and responsible to the community. The motion carried 6:2, with councilors Schue, Bennett, Ehrman, Rutan, Green, and Bascom voting aye, and councilors Boles and Holmer voting nay. Ms. Ehrman directed the council's attention to a memo from the Literacy Coalition requesting $5,000. She asked about the council's interest in supporting this request. Mr. Bennett said it was his understanding that the council had agreed not to bring funding requests before the council until it has had an opportunity to decide on the specific procedures that will be used to address them. Ms. Schue said that in her understanding the council agreed that a fund would be developed from which private funding requests could be allocated. This proposal represents the first request from that fund. Councilors took an informal poll and were divided on this issue. Results demonstrated that there was more than majority support for Mr. Bennett's position. (5:3) At 7:25 p.m., Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council. ~llY S~bmit d ~~ ~y~ - Mi heal Gleaso City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 061190-530 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 7