Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/09/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room-City Hall July 9, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap8 In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey and Council President Gary PapS, Ms. Nathanson called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Nathanson declared July 9 was Diabetes Awareness Day. She noted that "Mr. Diabetes" had visited and was walking the perimeter of the country to draw attention to, create awareness of, and promote education about diabetes. She referred the council to the informational materials that Mr. Diabetes presented to her and indicated they would be available in the council office and at the library. A.WORK SESSION: Underground Utilities City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Tom Larsen of the Public Works Department and Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department, who were present for the item. Mayor Torrey arrived. Mr. Larson reviewed a proposal to underground utilities east of Agate Street and west of Broadway in conjunction with the first phase of Lane Transit District's (LTD) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, which would involve the widening of the street. The total cost of undergrounding utilities in the area would be $276,000. A proposal had been made to split the cost between LTD, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), and the City of Eugene. The City's share, $92,000, would be financed from Urban Renewal District revenues. Mayor Torrey invited questions and comments. Mr. Meisner said that the questions he raised when Ms. Nathanson brought up the issue had apparently not been transmitted to staff. He had asked how taking money from the urban renewal fund related to the other purposes and expenditures in the fund, particularly the AutoCraft purchase and the council's decision to retain the old Agripac office, which left the City with less land to sell. His major concern was how the proposed expenditure would be prioritized with other needs for undergrounding with the renewal district and the courthouse neighborhood. Because his questions had not been answered, he was not prepared to take action on the proposal. He had no sense of its relative priority. MINUTES - Eugene City Council July 9, 2003 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Taylor suggested that if Eugene was to partner in the project with EWEB and LTD, it needed to act soon or the opportunity would be lost. Mr. Meisner said merely because the opportunity existed did not mean it was the best use for the funds. Spending the money as proposed could mean the City would not have money available to underground utilities in the immediate neighborhood of the courthouse. Mr. Sullivan conceded that there was no overall context for undergrounding utilities in the area or any budget for undergrounding, although undergrounding utilities was discussed as a priority during the Downtown Visioning process. Mr. Meisner said that for the past two years, the City's focus in the renewal district had been on the courthouse site, and using district assets now could mean there were insufficient dollars to undergrounding utilities in the courthouse neighborhood, which was a high priority and had been discussed by the Planning Commission as well as by the court. Mr. Sullivan noted that the financial position of the district had been provided to the council in a memorandum. He projected revenues of $550,000 in fiscal year 2004 and noted the receipt of the courthouse site sale price from the General Services Administration (GSA). Ms. Bettman said she shared some of Mr. Meisner's concerns. She thought the project was a good one but believed it was out of context in many ways. There was no overall plan for undergrounding utilities and the City lacked the resources needed to underground utilities in other nearby areas, diminishing the benefit of undergrounding where proposed. She asked what other uses existed for the money in question. Ms. Bettman asked what other funds were available that could be reprogrammed to the project. She asked if State Transportation Program (STP) funds were eligible for such a project. Mr. Larson was not aware of other funds, and did not know if STP funds could be used for such a purpose. Mr. Taylor pointed out that the expenditure leveraged money from both EWEB and LTD and could be useful as a precedent in discussions about possible undergrounding projects with the GSA and County. Ms. Bettman believed that the City needed to identify other potential funding sources before moving forward. In regard to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that urban renewal funds be leveraged in conjunction with the Facilities Reserve for the construction of a new city hall/police station in the district, DeeAnn Hardt of the Central Services Department indicated that public buildings could not be constructed using urban renewal dollars. Ms. Nathanson reported that she was attempting to secure other funds from a variety of sources, including the State of Oregon's main street improvement programs, but did not yet have any commitments. She noted that LTD had indicated it would be discussing the potential of sharing the cost with private property owner, one of which had proactively contacted LTD about the possibility. That would reduce the public cost. Speaking to the issue of priorities, Ms. Nathanson said there was not an overall plan and sequence for undergrounding utilities; undergrounding utilities occurred when streets were torn up for other reasons. It was too expensive to tear up a street merely to underground utilities, and the incremental approach helped "chip away" at the objective to be achieved. She said that it was more desirable to have utilities underground for safety and reliability reasons. In addition, undergrounding utilities helped the City achieve the goals of its Entrance Beautification Plan. MINUTES - Eugene City Council July 9, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson noted that she had received letters of support for the project from the University of Oregon and Judge Michael Hogan. Mr. Kelly understood the concerns expressed about the project as well as the reasons for going ahead. He thought Ms. Nathanson's points were well-taken, and he was pleased by the joint participation, which might not be available for other projects. He said he would feel more comfortable if he had a sense from the Planning and Development Department of what the future held for the district. Mr. Sullivan said that an update of the plan was in process. The existing plan was due to expire in 2005. At the last council meeting at which the issue was discussed, the council had indicated an interest in discussing specific projects for the district. That discussion had not yet occurred. Mr. Kelly said he favored undergrounding utilities whenever possible. He asked if there had been discussion of expanding the undergrounding to the area between Agate and Villard streets on the north side of Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Larson reviewed the scope of the project, noting that if the utilities were not undergrounded, they would be set back. Two poles east of Agate would be addressed and the balance of the street to Onyx Street would be undergrounded. The remainder of the poles would remain in place. Ms. Taylor favored the proposal because it was the right time and because it involved urban renewal money rather than other tax dollars. She said that if other money was involved, she would probably oppose the proposal. Mr. Meisner reiterated his concerns that the council was being asked to take action on a single project without any context about other possible projects, such as the daylighting of the Millrace, which would require a considerable sum. He asked again if this was the highest priority for the district's funds. He could not support the project at this time. Ms. Bettman said that the opportunity was a good one but, like a great sale, if one did not have the money or needed it for other purposes, one might have to pass on it. She did not discount the value of the aesthetic improvement that would result, but pointed out that the money in question was tax increment funding diverted from schools and City services. She did not find the project to be a high enough priority to justify the expenditure and hoped that staff could come back with other suggestions for funding the proposal. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the council could not use the money for schools or other services. It was restricted as to where and for what it could be used. For that reason, she supported the proposal and wanted to take advantage of the opportunity that existed. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the comments of Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman that there may be other uses for the funds. She pointed out, however, that the council had not adopted any projects, although it had adopted policies identifying the types of projects to be funded. Undergrounding utilities was among those projects. Ms. Nathanson said that if the council did not fund the project now, the opportunity might not be available for a long time. She said that aesthetics were important, but safety and service reliability were also key factors in EWEB's decision to move toward undergrounding utilities as a general practice. She noted that the University of Oregon had undergrounded the utilities in this area across Franklin Boulevard. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue other potential sources of funds and to bring back a proposal to fund, MINUTES - Eugene City Council July 9, 2003 Page 3 Work Session with Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Funds and/or other funds, the City's share of the cost to underground the utility lines on Franklin Boulevard from Agate Street to Onyx Street. Ms. Bettman asked how staff interpreted the motion. Mr. Taylor said that he would confer with City staff about other funding sources and with LTD about the potential of private participation. He noted the City's limited budget and indicated he was not optimistic that other funds would be found. He did not recommend using the council's contingency fund to underwrite the cost. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that given that the motion suggested a backup funding source, the City was unlikely to be able to find other willing contributors. She advocated for defeat of the motion so that staff could pursue other funding sources and return to the council with a proposal. Ms. Taylor said that she preferred the original motion because she wanted to use urban renewal money to fund the project. She did not approve of the urban renewal in general. However, the funds had already been diverted and could not be used for many other purposes. She considered their use appropriate in this case. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the motion. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Taylor that the motion did not obligate the City to the project. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman's conclusion that Eugene would be unable to find other participants. He did not support the motion. He said urban renewal had done great things, but he did not know yet what the purpose of the district was and he did not know if the expenditure was a priority for the district. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the incentive for others to participate would be the legislative history of the issue and the no votes that could occur. The threat existed that Eugene would not participate, and the potential was that there could be no support from the City of Eugene. Mayor Torrey indicated support for the motion. He also believed that the City was unlikely to find other sources of funding, but thought the City should take advantage of the opportunity. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman voting no. B.EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(1)(h), the council entered into executive session. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES - Eugene City Council July 9, 2003 Page 4 Work Session