Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1992 Meeting . '. i " , .' . 'MINUTES ,. , Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall October 26, 1992 5:30'p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman (5:40 p.m.), Randy MacDonald, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette, Roger Rutan. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Shawn Boles, Bobby Green. The adjourned meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. CITY COUNCIL DINNER WORK SESSION A. Adootion of the 1991 Fire Code David Nuss, Fire Marshal, explained that the City currently operates under the 1988 version of the Uniform Fire Code. Now that the 1991 edition is avail- able, the City can update it. This is also an opportunity for the City to adopt wildland fire prevention measures. Staff recommends incorporating the . licensing and permitting processes used for hazardous materials in the adoption process. Staff is proposing use of an administrative process, as opposed to an ordinance, for adoption of the Fire Code as well as the special- ty building codes (electrical, structural, plumbing, mechanical, and CABO one- and two-family dwelling). Ms. Ehrman arrived. Glenn Klein, City Attorney's Office, stated that in the past the council has always adopted the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Uniform Building Code by ordinance. With codes other than the Fire Code, the council has no discretion in what it can approve. The City may adopt a Fire Code different from the State's, as long as it provides the same or a greater degree of safety than the State's Fire Code. The new proposed process matches that used by the State legislature: the council would establish broad policy guidelines, and the details of the codes would be adopted by administrative rule. In that way, staff would not have to return to the council whenever the State code changes. Mr. Klein explained that in order for the City Manager to adopt an adminis- trative rule, the rule is written in proposed form and notice is published in the newspaper on five consecutive days. Anyone who has requested to be informed of changes to rules related to a particular program receives individ- ual notice. After a IS-day public comment period, the proposed rule may be . MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 1 5:30 p.m. adopted in final form. The only appeal under the administrative rule process . would be to the court, asserting that the City Manager exceeded his authority under the ordinance adopted by the council. Mr. Klein added that the council could establish a more detailed policy for a matter which it wishes to regulate more closely; for example, it could prohibit fireworks in certain areas and on certain days. Mayor Jeff Miller asked how much latitude the City Manager would have in interpreting the council's policies. Mr. Gleason responded that the council retains oversight whether the code is adopted by ordinance or administrative rule. If the council does not approve the manager's administrative rule, it could draw it back. Actually, he said, the proposal would increase the effectiveness of the council's oversight because it allows the council to target the areas on which it wishes to focus. In response to Mr. MacDonald's question, Mr. Klein stated that other cities have adopted specific provisions to implement fire codes, but to his knowledge none has yet adopted this approach. He added that the City of Eugene clearly has the authority to adopt this approach. Mr. Gleason stated that this is the first step to code simplification. He added that the new procedure allows the council to focus on policy development and distinguish areas in which State requirements prevent local variation from areas in which the City has discretion. The council will decide the boundary between policy and administration, and can raise to the policy level any administrative aspects it desires. . Ms. Bascom asked whether the administrative rule could be subject to automatic council review at certain intervals. Mr. Klein replied that the council is automatically notified of proposed fee changes; however, the normal process with rules (unless it is a specific rule or part of an ordinance) is simply publication and notification of interested parties. He added that the council could be notified of every published rule, or of any proposed rule related to a particular area. Ms. Ehrman asked exactly how policy issues would be elevated for the council's consideration. Mr. Gleason responded that the council could identify problems with current administrative rules, and instruct the manager to develop a policy to deal with them, offering certain criteria. Changes could be made with greater agility because it would not be necessary for the council to review the entire ordinance in order to do so. Mr. Gleason said that typical- ly such issues arise under "Mayor/Council Discussion" when two councilors request that the item be placed on the agenda. The council would have the option of holding a public hearing, or instructing the manager to conduct a public hearing. Mr. Nicholson said the council could either amend the ordinance to place permanent restrictions on the manager's discretion in an administrative rule, or could instruct the manager to change an existing rule. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 2 . 5:30 p.m. . Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to direct the City Manager to bring the 1991 Uniform Fire Code, including the hazard- ous materials licensing program, and updated specialty building codes back to the City Council as an administrative adoption process. Mr. MacDonald reported that Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Nuss, staff, and he had identified four fire safety issues regarding the wildland-urban interface, and asked when they would be brought before the council. Mr. Nuss responded that the hazardous materials licensing provisions and the amendments to the Fire Code are written; they must now be compiled, and the City Attorney's Office must draft the ordinance. Mr. Nuss stated that the haunted house and special residential (SR) occupan- cies are State amendments that must be included in the local Fire Code. In response to Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Nuss said that the current wording in the code amendments on fireworks is drawn verbatim from the Uniform Fire Code: a ban on all fireworks except permitted public displays. Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about the fireworks issue, and reminded the council that it promised to resolve the issue before the New Year. She noted that Springfield consid- ered but did not implement a ban, and Mr. Nuss confirmed that the State does not require a total ban. Mr. Gleason said he would design three policy options regarding fireworks for the council's consideration. Ms. Bascom recalled that the council promised some of those present at the . last public hearing on the matter that they would be notified and involved in the discussion before a proposal is drafted. She suggested checking the minutes to determine who the persons were. Mr. Gleason said the council can give policy direction on the issue, and then hold a hearing and review the policy based on the testimony. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. B. Revisions to Annexation Policies and Processes Jenny Sirnio, Chair of the Planning Commission, stated that all seven planning commissioners recommended forwarding the commission's report on annexation to the council in its entirety. They agreed that the strategy of producing an annexation plan(s}, beginning with the River Road area, is the most important element in the report. Ms. Sirnio said the commission's recommendations were tentative, based on the council's direction. Ms. Ehrman asked the reason for discontinuing incentives to annexation. John Van Landingham, Planning Commission, replied that the incentives were estab- lished as a part of a large-scale annexation effort in River Road/Santa Clara. However, since the Metro Plan now allows developed properties in the River Road/Santa Clara area to receive sewer service without annexation, the only persons who voluntarily annex are owners of undeveloped land, and incentives are no longer necessary. Ms. Ehrman expressed concern that it might be seen . MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 3 5:30 p.m. as unfair to discontinue the incentives. Ms. Sirnio responded that the . commission felt the issue should be reviewed and possibly re-establ'ished as part of the annexation plan. Ms. Bascom asked why River Road was recommended as the first area flJr which an annexation plan should be developed. Ms. Sirnio replied that the City already provides many services there, and a survey in River Road indicated that if sewers were in place and it was clear how police services would be !provided, attitudes toward annexation might change. Mr. Van Landingham added that a map shows Eugene to be roughly circular, with the River Road area like a pie wedge cut out. Mr. Nicholson noted that the report recommends continuing with noncontiguous annexations, and asked Ms. Sirnio's position on the issue. Ms. Sirnio replied that her own opposition to noncontiguous annexations has not changed, although she feels that the approach of producing an annexation plan is sensible. Mr. Nicholson asked how the plan would make noncontiguous annexations more palatable, and whether the City would continue to approve every request no matter how it fit in with the overall plan. Ms. Sirnio responded that the commission recommends continuing with noncontiguous annexations while an overall plan is being produced. Mr. Van Landingham said the plan would set forth the City's approach to annexing a certain area, including the steps and the advantages and disadvan- tages. A vote of residents would occur if that is the method of annexation identified by the plan. He said the commission is seeking definitive action. He asked that if the council feels an annexation plan cannot or should not be . undertaken, it inform the commission of that as soon as possible. Ms. Ehrman said that the council had withdrawn funding for annexations from the budget. Jan Childs, Planning Division Director, stated that two separate . issues exist: I} the direction from Eugene Decisions that the City stop processing individual annexation requests and send them instead to the Boundary Commission, which is included in the Planning Commission's report; and 2} the longer-term development of an annexation plan, which the Planning Commission could identify as a priority for its 1993 work program. She said the possibility exists of obtaining State grant funds to support that work. Ms. Ehrman noted that the City's stance toward annexation has changed over time, and most recently has not been proactive. She said the commission's report suggests the resumption of a more proactive posture. Ms. Sirnio stated that annexation plans could be developed for the entire area between the city limits and the urban growth boundary (UGB), although it would not be necessary to attempt to prepare plans for all areas simultaneously. Addressing Mr. Nicholson's question about what would change under the commis- sion's approach, she and Mr. Van Landingham stated that the City would review the tools available for annexation and enlist the help of citizens in the area to be annexed in deciding how to bring the annexation about. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 4 . 5:30 p.m. Mr. MacDonald saw two issues: I} reasserting the City's position and inten- . tion with respect to annexation; and 2} replacing Resolution 4002 as recom- mended in the report. He said the City should consider its tax base and the impact on the rest of the metropolitan area of not annexing River Road, and should protect the interests of City taxpayers. Mr. Robinette said that moving ahead with an annexation plan is not consistent with the council's financial policy goals. He requested estimates of the cost of drawing up the plan. Mr. Van Landingham responded that the next step would be for the council to hold a public hearing and adopt the report, but the Planning Commission discourages adoption of the report if the resources are not available to implement it. Mr. Robinette replied that he wishes to know the costs in staff time and money before holding a public hearing. Mr. Rutan asked how much acreage is between the city limits and the UGB and what proportion of it lies in River Road and Santa Clara. Cathy Czerniak, Planning and Development Department, replied that compared to River Road and Santa Clara, relatively little land is located in Willakenzie, the South Hills, West Eugene, and Glenwood. Mr. Rutan said the long-term costs of the plan should be measured by the importance of the objectives. He suggested including Glenwood and Santa Clara as top-priority areas to be annexed. Ms. Bascom said that she supports sending annexation requests directly to the Boundary Commission. She also favored focusing annexation efforts initially on River Road, and felt that helped address concerns over funding. She stated . that as a matter of basic fairness, residents of un annexed areas should share in the costs of the services they enjoy. Mr. Nicholson felt that tying taxes to the City's boundaries creates problems. He suggested the alternative approach of collecting taxes from non-residents, such as payroll taxes, in order to create financial incentives to annex. Ms. Ehrman requested input from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) on how the DPS' long-range plan is affected by the timing of annexation. Mr. Van Landingham pointed out that the Planning Commission does not develop proposals for funding mechanisms. Ms. Sirnio added that many of the issues raised by the council would be addressed in developing the annexation plan. Mayor Miller and the council requested more information on resources and costs, as well as what activities would be set aside by the Planning and Development Department in order to implement the report, before the council schedules a public hearing: Mayor Miller suggested that the process be used as a template for other boards and commissions when scoping their work plans. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 5 5:30 p.m. C. Items from the Mayor. City Council. and City ManaQer . 1. Relief Nursery Mr. Rutan said he was contacted by organizers of the Relief Nursery project in Ward 8. He noted the request from the nursery in the council packet, and said he strongly supports it. He said that almost $1 million has been raised for the project from private sources. The City's systems development charges (SDCs) to the project amount to approximately $75,000, and another City fee of $5,000 for right-of-way usage for a construction trailer brings the total to about $80,000. He recommended that the council seriously consider options for funding all or part of the public costs of the project. Mr. Gleason pointed out that the request is part of a larger issue of how to handle the City's charges to publicly supported projects. He said the first staff team meeting on the issue is scheduled for November 5, and it will probably take until December or later to develop options for the council. Jeannie Phelps of the Relief Nursery said that the trailer is already parked at the site. She stated that foundation work is scheduled to begin on November 3, and the fees must be paid when the permit is issued. Mr. MacDonald expressed support for the request and inquired why the expense was not anticipated. Ms. Phelps responded that the project organizers realized SDC charges were pending but did not know the amount. She added that the project's builder suffered an auto accident and has been unable to participate in his business since August 11. . Ms. Bascom said that possible funding sources include the beginning cash balance and the contingency fund. Mr. Nicholson recommended considering other needs for the $80,000 with which the Relief Nursery competes. Ms. Ehrman said she supports the request, but such needs cannot be addressed piecemeal. She suggested developing criteria to determine which agencies should be assisted in paying their charges, and noted that one option is to defray a certain percentage of non-profits' SDCs. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the City Council direct the manager to develop options for funding all or part of the public costs associated with the Relief Nursery development. Mr. Nicholson advocated collecting SDCs from nonprofits and then allocating the funds to certain nonprofits based on merit and not necessarily according to whether they are engaged in construction. Mr. Rutan suggested that be one of the options developed by the manager. Mr. Miller noted that the policy options should not place the City in the direct line of tort. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Gleason stated that he cannot act in the matter before returning to the council with the options, and will do whatever is possible within the bounds MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 6 . 5:30 p.m. . of his authority to deal with the project's operational problems. 2. William BridQes' Workshoo Mr. Robinette called attention to a workshop with William Bridges November 12 on dealing with change. 3. L-COG Aooreciation Dinner Mayor Miller asked councilors to strongly consider attending the November 13 Lane Council of Governments (L-COG) Appreciation Dinner. Ms. Ehrman will attend as the council's representative. 4. Council AQenda ManaQement Mr. Gleason asked to place on the council's November 9 agenda a discussion with members of the Executive Team about how to handle the council's agendas. He stated that it is impossible to control the agendas without the active design of all concerned, and there is sometimes a lack of synchronicity. He said management of the agenda is key to the entire process of governance. Staff will bring to that meeting a draft of next year's work program and a forecast of meetings already assigned. Mayor Miller recommended inviting the councilors-elect to the session, and the council agreed. Mr. MacDonald suggested that at some point the council, the . Executive Team, and the Mayor hold a retreat. D. Council Committee Reoorts Ms. Bascom reported that State Transportation Goal 12 and the related ordi- nances to be adopted by cities were presented at the Metropolitan Policy Committee. She said that at the dedication of the Richardson Bridge housing project, she observed that the project is inconsistent with Goal 12 because it lacks facilities to encourage bicycle transportation. Ms. Bascom also reported that the County tabled and may vote down the Natural Resources Plan. She expressed concern that the County's action may affect the likelihood of obtaining State funds. Ms. Childs explained that the County's action would have no impact on the City's West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study (WEWSAS). Mr. MacDonald reported that a new annexation requirement was discussed at the meeting of the Land Conservation and Development Commission's Local Officials Advisory Committee. He suggested discussing the proposal and giving input as individuals or through the Intergovernmental Relations office. Mayor Miller stated that the Council Committee on Infrastructure is developing proposals with expenses that the council should review, such as the stormwater master plan. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 7 5:30 p.m. Ms. Ehrman reported that the Intergovernmental Human Services Convnittee (IHSC) . is responding to the Governor's request for information on the effects of Ballot Measure 5. She al so stated that the question arose at the C10mmunity Development Committee (CDC) of whether outgoing members of boards and commis- sions may apply for membership in new entities created by merging c1ommissions. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Ry~ ~~ Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Christina Cowger) cc53026.102 . MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 8 . 5:30 p.m.