Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/1990 Meeting ---- ----- - --- e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall November 28, 1990 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Bobby Green, Roger Rutan, Shawn Boles, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Debra Ehrman. The adjourned meeting of November 19, 1990, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. 1. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER A. Interfaith/Access Center Mr. Boles requested an update on the status of the Interfaith/Access Center for low-income citizens in Eugene. He noted that there has been some recent e discussion about Lane Transit District (LTD) providing transportation assis- tance for those persons, and said that he hopes the assistance will be in the form of free bus passes. B. Kaiser Permanente Mr. Boles requested an update on the Kaiser Permanente proposal recently received in a letter to the council. C. Irkutsk Printmakers Show Ms. Bascom announced that that the Irkutsk Printmakers Show will open next week in the Jacobs Gallery and invited councilors to attend. The money raised from the show will assist in bringing an Irkutsk artist to Eugene. D. New Bicycle Committee Chair Ms. Bascom said that she recently met with the new Bicycle Committee Chair who is eager to begin work planning efforts. She suggested that the council schedule some time on its agenda early next year for an update and discussion on the direction of the Bicycle Committee work plan. The council agreed to this suggestion. Mr. Boles suggested that the proposed discussion be integrated with an update of the entire transportation modes work plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 1 e E. Housing Policy Board Update Ms. Bascom updated the council on the work of the Housing Policy Board. She noted that a subcommittee has been formed to focus the board's efforts di- rectly on the Richardson Bridge housing project in an attempt to proceed more quickly with project implementation. F. Lane Council of Governments (L-COG) Annual Banquet Ms. Schue announced that representative Peter DeFazio will be speaking at L-COG's annual banquet on November 30. She noted that this would be a good opportunity for councilors to become acquainted with Mr. DeFazio. Interested councilors should contact Pam Berrian. G. Ba 11 ot Measure 5 Ms. Schue indicated that she would be meeting this evening with representa- tives of the Association of Oregon Counties and the School Board Association about the impacts of Measure 5 and, in particular, how local governments should be financed. Ms. Schue also noted that she is serving on a task team for the Governor- elect that will be looking at how the State should relate to cities, coun- ties, and other special districts. She asked that councilors contact her if they have ideas on this issue. e H. West University Neighborhood Business Association Mr. Nicholson said that in recent discussions with the West University Neigh- borhood Business Association, members continue to express concern with the presence of transients in the area. He wondered whether the City has a sys- tem whereby citizens who have expressed an interest in a particular issue can be automatically informed of subsequent meetings on that issue. Mr. Gleason said that a process for handling citizen requests for information exists through the Public Service Office (PSO). Responding to another question, Mr. Gleason said that the process is not automatically activated for every person who gives pubic testimony. 1. Downtown Design Committee Mayor Miller indicated that the Downtown Design Committee has recently ex- pressed concern with the future of downtown design efforts in light of fund- ing impacts of Ballot Measure 5. He acknowledged the controversy which still exists within the community about downtown design, particularly regarding whether streets should be opened to vehicular traffic. Mayor Miller said that the committee is seeking council endorsement of its continued efforts. Mr. Rutan felt that the council should continue to move ahead with its down- town redesign efforts, targeting a decision for 1991. He reminded the coun- cil of its discussion at the most recent Goals Session about how this issue should be presented to the voters. Mr. Rutan pointed out that while the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 2 -- ------- - ------~- - council had made a decision to put the library issue to a vote in March, it might consider moving the downtown design issue to the March time slot be- cause of uncertainty about the library's financing status. Mr. Boles said that he fully supports moving ahead with downtown design under the current time line. Mr. Nicholson felt that an integral part of the Downtown Design Committee's concern with respect to this issue had to do with the City's ability to com- mit funds for the project once the design had been agreed upon. He empha- sized that the council should not put a design before the voters until it is fairly certain about a possible means of funding. He also pointed out that library and downtown design issues are interrelated and would potentially be competing for the same funding. Mr. Green agreed with Mr. Boles that the council should send a message to the Downtown Design Committee offering continued support for the work that is currently underway. Ms. Bascom concurred. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to instruct the Down- town Design Committee to continue its work with the assumption that the downtown design issue will be on the May ballot. The motion carried 6:1, with councilors Schue, Rutan, Bascom, Boles, Green, and Robinette voting in favor; and Councilor Nicholson voting against. e 11. WORK SESSION: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Les Lyle, Public Works, gave the staff report. He said that over the last several months the Council Committee on Infrastructure (CCI) has been working on a draft ordinance revising the existing systems development charge (SDC) ordinance as mandated by the state legislature. Mr. Boles said that the revisions are being mandated by the State legislature with the goal of requiring City to recoup the costs of growth in the communi- ty. One of CCI's main objectives with this proposal was to create a fair and equitable package that would have the support of both elected officials and the development community. The CCI felt that several of the issues merited a council position, as well as a CCl recommendation. Mr. Boles said that in those instances where the staff recommendation differs from the CCI position, he would summarize the discussion of the CCI. Mr. Lyle provided the council with some background information. He said that the purpose of the legislation is to provide a uniform framework for the imposition of systems development charges by local governments through out the state. The legislation requires that the charges be used only for capi- tal improvements on specific systems. At this time, SDCs can be developed for five systems: transportation, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, parks, and water systems. The first four are included in the draft ordinance. With the new legislation, the City is expected to independently track monetary expen- e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 3 e ditures of each of the systems, identify specific projects which will be funded with SOC revenues, and the estimated cost and timing for each project. Mr. Lyle said that staff is recommending project identification through the Capital Improvement Plan, but will retain the flexibility to fall back on other approved plans, if needed. He stated that the ordinance needs to be in place by July 1991. Mr. Lyle provided the council with the following list of key features and modifications of the ordinance: * Prohibition of exemptions (except for low-income housing) * Provision of credits for impact-reducing capital improvements * Expenditure of revenue within the system for which it is collected * Addition of an SOC for parks that is charged to all development types * Inclusion of the full administration costs within levied rates * Broad-based scope of facilities included in each system (e.g. transportation) * Rate-setting consistent with current approach; rates set adminis- tratively * Review of possible impacts in relation to Ballot Measure 5 * Revised rates have been compared with other jurisdictions Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Lyle said that that the SDC for parks would not govern a park's size or proximity to development. However, e the responsibility for a park or use of SOCs would have to come from the need created by development in general. In response to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Lyle clarified that the park SDC is for construction and land acquisition only; it would not include overhead and maintenance costs. Mr. Lyle reviewed the issues which the CCI felt warranted further council discussion. He provided the council with an overview of CCI discussion, the council's possible decision options, and a staff recommendation. Based upon the information provided, the council discussed the array of possible deci- sion options and gave its recommendation. A. Recognizing the Developer's Contribution to the Public Good Mr. Robinette asked whether developers would be likely to make on-site im- provements if they were not given SOC credits. In response, Mr. Lyle said that the improvement would likely still be made even in the absence of cred- its because the developer would be required to meet all the infrastructure needs for a development as if it were being constructed publicly. Mr. Nicholson asked about the practical consequences of choosing to provide credits for on-site improvements. Mr. Lyle responded that while choosing to give credits would reduce the amount of revenue coming in, it would be bene- ficial to provide incentives for developments which are for the public good. Credits for such public improvements would be consistent with some of the council's goals, such as bike path improvements or public parks. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 4 e Mr. Rutan requested a list of the types of activities that would be subject to SDC credits. Mr. Boles noted that the committee spent a lot of time attempting to strike a balanced proposal that recognizes both the costs and the benefits of develop- ment. He said that while it is unfortunate that credits have to stay within a phased development, the proposal does give the developer the choice to absorb the full SDC or to engage in activities which would help the developer offset certain costs. Ms. Schue pointed out that while allowing developers the opportunity to make choices about a public improvement reduces the City's flexibility to make decisions, it increases the likelihood that the improvement will be done in an expedient fashion. Mr. Nicholson said that this also dilutes the City's ability to set priorities. Council recommendation: Provide credits for the public share of on-site improvements not to exceed the value of the SDC for the specific system. B. low-income Housing Exemption Mr. Rutan expressed his support for this exemption, noting that it is consis- tent with the council's social goal. However, he also noted the council should have a good understanding of what the costs would be. Mr. Boles said that while he supports the construction of low-income housing, e he does not believe this exemption will get at this goal. He noted that exempting low-income housing from SDCs simply shifts the burden of housing construction to the General Fund. If the council decides to move forward with this exemption) it should be subject to a mandatory one-year review. Responding to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Lyle said that the term low- income housing is clearly defined within State law; it would be easy to de- termine which housing projects would qualify for SDC credits. Mr. Green said that he supported the staff recommendation because it provided incentives for much-needed low-income housing. Ms. Bascom concurred, noting that providing credits for housing construction would make it possible to reduce housing construction costs. Mr. Nicholson agreed on the benefit of providing incentives for low-income housing development, but emphasized that the public contribution to this cause should be explicit. Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Tom Schwetz explained that be- cause of the multiplier effect it makes sense to exempt low-income housing projects from SDCs altogether, rather than levying a charge and then provid- ing credits retroactively. Council recommendation: Allow credits to be included in the rate setting process. Require a one-year review. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 5 I - C. Date of Implementation Mr. Lyle explained that the intent of this is to decide whether persons ap- plying for permits in the process would be subject to the current or revised rates. Mr. Green asked about the time frame that exists between the date of applica- tion and the date of issuance. In response, Mr. Lyle said that this varies across projects. He estimated the time to be approximately 4-6 weeks. Mr. Boles said that the central concern on this issue centered around the potential burden on the Permit and Information (PIC) staff that might occur if developers try to rush new plans through before the new rates go into effect. He pointed out that the detriment of recommending that permits be processed on the date of application rather than the date of implementation would be a continued burden on the General Fund. To respond to one of the concerns raised by Mr. Boles, Mr. Lyle said that the PIC will consider, under the current rate system, only those applications which are submitted with a complete set of development plans at the time of application. Council recommendation: Levy the new SDC rates based on the date of applica- tion to lower the negative impact on the PIC staff. D. Transfer of SDC Credits e Mr. Lyle explained that the issue is whether to allow the transfer of SDC credits from one system to another or provide the ability to bank a credit, if the credit is greater than the SDC, to be used in future developments. Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Boles said that the committee struggled with this issue, and eventually came out on the side of the staff recommendation. Council recommendation: Do not allow the transfer of credits between devel- opments because of the expense and problems of administering such a program but allow it between phases. E. SDCs within the Urban Growth Boundary Mr. Lyle said that it was suggested by CCI that the City collect SDCs within the Urban Growth Boundary and establish a relationship between the ordinance and Lane County. This would be an extension of the existing urban transition agreements. Mr. Boles said that the CCI's purpose in doing this was to find a consistent means of treating those persons who may choose to annex to the City early. He recognized that in actuality, the City is not able to collect enough money to cover the true costs of growth. He also said that in the future, the City may want to consider networking with other jurisdictions as well. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 6 e Council recommendation: Approach Lane County regarding the adoption of the SOC ordinance since all new development inside the UGB will impact the vari- ous infrastructure systems. F. SDC Resources to Match State Transportation Projects Mr. Lyle said that on occasion, the City has made a contribution to or pro- vided matching funds for state projects. However, there is no formula for such contributions. It appears to have become a practice of the State that some local contribution be made as an indication of local commitment and priority. Staff recommends that the council include a component in the Transportation SDC to provide local match for a portion of the costs of State highway projects. Additionally, it recommends that the council pursue get- ting the State Transportation Commission to develop policy regarding local contributions. Mr. Green said that this issue arose around the State's apparent lack of formula or policy to deal with matching funds. The committee wants to en- courage the State to develop a policy. In agreement with Mr. Green, Mr. Boles said that the State's policy with respect to matching funds for transportation projects seems to be a matter of custom. He also expressed concern that the City might be subject to chal- lenge if it were to put City matched funds up against a list of specific transportation capacity building projects. It may be possible to start in this direction by implementing a transportation trust fund that is managed by e the City against a CIP. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Lyle said that a council decision in accordance with the staff recommendation could have an impact on further State decisions regarding local transportation projects. Ms. Schue agreed with Mr. Boles that the State should have a specific policy in place governing its transportation program matching system. She noted that while the City could leave the full cost of highway transportation im- provements up to the State, the City has had good success in the past with the fund-matching system and has acquired projects that it would not have otherwise secured. Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Mr. Carlson (L-COG), said that if the council chooses not to provide a local match for the cost of State highway projects, the existing SOC charge for individual developments would be reduced by approximately 20 percent of the transportation SDCs. Mr. Rutan said that he is confused on this issue and suggested the council withhold a recommendation until it has additional clarification. Mr. Boles suggested that in conjunction with the next review, that the coun- cil look at whether setting aside the 20-percent transportation SDC would be equitable in terms of increased capacity demands on the transportation sys- tem. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 7 -- -- - e Ms. Schue also requested a brief summary of the City's history in dealing with the State on this matching program. Mr. Gleason agreed to provide this additional information and noted that typically the City must conduct prelim- inary survey and engineering work prior to the State even giving project consideration. Council recommendation: To withhold a recommendation on this issue until additional information and clarification to some questions is obtained. G. Parks SDe Levied Against Commercial/Industrial Development Mr. Lyle said that very few other jurisdictions around the country levy SDC charges against commercial or industrial developments. The parks system is one of the systems for which an SDC can be charged. Staff is recommending that the City allocate the parks SDC on only residential development at this time because residential users tend to have the greatest impact on parks. Mr. Boles indicated that although the committee gave a fair amount of consid- eration to levying SDC charges against commercial and industrial develop- ments, it decided to recommend against this because of concern that this non-standard approach might be subject to challenge. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Lyle said that upon initial review of this program, the ratio of SDC charges levied against developments was approximately one third for commercial and industrial versus two thirds for residential developments. e Mr. Robinette urged the council to be aware that levying an SDC for parks will impact the City's ability to be competitive in the development market. Council recommendation: Allocate the parks SDe on commercial and industrial development and residential, recognizing that this will slightly increase the Commercial and Industrial SDC and is a non-standard approach which may be subject to challenge. H. Further Discussion Mr. Lyle provided the council with an overview of the public involvement component of the ordinance. He emphasized the importance of communicating with the development community on the ordinance. Staff recommends the crea- tion of a Task Force which includes CCI members and one member from each of the following: Home Builders Association, Chamber of Commerce, District 4J, and the Metro Partnership. The task force would also provide recommendations on networking with various constituents. Ms. Schue noted that some people feel that SDCs should include the cost of new schools and asked for an opinion from the council about this. Mr. Boles indicated his interest in this concept and said that SDCs should be levied to pay for public safety, as well. While the eCI also recognized the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 8 ---- e importance of using SDC revenues to pay for the construction of new schools, it could not identify a logical way to do it. Mr. Nicholson urged the council to be aware of the barriers to housing devel- opment which will be created as a result of increased development costs through the implementation of higher SDCs. Mr. Rutan voiced concern with the proposed community involvement committee structure. Specifically, he expressed concern that the committee does not contain a representative from the development community and felt that the Metro Partnership's position could be easily communicated without committee representation. He suggested that the Council Committee on Committees return to the council with a revised committee structure recommendation. II 1. WORK SESSION: DISCUSSION OF THE OVERPARK lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, gave the staff presentation. He reminded the council that last year during the new library financing dis- cussions, the City Council asked the staff team to identify any and all li- brary financing options. One option identified was the possible sale of City-owned assets, such as the existing library, the Overpark, and various other miscellaneous properties. The specific possibility of selling the Overpark was highlighted by several inquiries from potential purchasers. Since that time, staff has requested and received an initial legal opinion on the sale of the Overpark, the results of which were that no legal restric- e tions to the sale of the facility were identified. The proceeds of the sale could be used for any council priority. Mr. Bowers reported that past policy dictates that the City only gets in- volved in parking when the private sector cannot make it work. The City's primary role is to subsidize capital construction costs which foster urban development, to provide adequate parking in the parking-exempt zone, and to operate parking garages on a break-even basis. Mr. Bowers indicated that the City has received some interest in potential Overpark sale. He noted that the City has an agreement with the downtown athletic club providing them with the right-of-first refusal which would have to be honored or renegotiated, if the City chose to proceed. Mr. Bowers provided the council with a list of pros and cons to the sale. Pros: the City's policy with respect to parking in that area has already been met; the sale would provide monetary resources to pay for other projects; the garage would generate taxes; and the sale could reduce some administration and capital expenses. Cons: because the garage was initially assessed through an assessment district, people who paid funds into that did not have the expectation that it could or would be sold; a likely increase in parking rates; a public perception of the loss of control over this facility, and the creation of a disincentive for office use with increased parking rates, resulting in a perception that developing downtown might be seen as less competitive. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 9 - e Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Bowers said that the interest from the private sector in purchasing this garage has been exploratory thus far. Mr. Nicholson asked how the City would benefit from selling the parking structure verses keeping the structure and raising parking rates. Mr. Bowers responded that because of past council policy on parking rates, it is unclear how persons would react to increased parking rates. Mr. Robinette asked about the tax benefits the City would receive as a result of making this a private structure as compared to what it receives now at the present parking rates. In response, Abe Farkas, Planning and Development Director, said that depending on assessment, the City would receive approxi- mately $30,000 for every million dollars of assessed value. This money re- ceived from the sale would go into the tax increment district enhancing the district's bonding capacity. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Green, Mr. Bowers said that business owners in this area who rely on the Overpark for parking have voiced concern with the sale, noting that increased in parking rates would be equivalent to increased rental rates. Mr. Boles said that he is not interested in selling the Overpark at this time. Mr. Rutan concurred. e Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Farkas said that the sale analysis was done prior to Measure 5. The amount which could be received from the sale presently is uncertain. After discussion, the council agreed that it was not interested in proceeding forward with a sale of the Overpark parking structure. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/~-rl Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 112890--1130 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 10