Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/13/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall August 13, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A.WORK SESSION: Discussion Concerning Transportation System Maintenance Fee The council was joined for the item by Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green. Mr. Green thanked the council for the opportunity to participate, and indicated he would listen first to the discussion and then provide input, noting that he was only one of five members of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments. Mr. Meisner indicated a preference to retain the transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) as a tool, but judged that from the calls and e-mail messages he received, there would be no one campaigning to keep it. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct staff to return with an ordinance to repeal the TSMF. Mr. Kelly indicated opposition to the motion because of his concern over the loss of the TSMF as a tool and his concern that people would perceive that the council backed down in the face of initiative petitions. He noted that parties such as the council, the board, and the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce agreed that there was a funding gap for street maintenance. The TSMF would raise $7 million annually. He asked Mr. Green to suggest alternatives to fill that gap. Mr. Green said that the question was a good one, but a better one might be what the City's priorities were. He thought the County's partnership with the City over the past ten years was well- documented. He said that a regional solution involving all Lane County communities was the best solution. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Green that the issue was a countywide issue. He said that a regional solution would require more funding, but he had heard nothing from any critic of the TSMF suggesting a solution to funding the need. Ms. Nathanson noted her previous interest in a moratorium. She thought it represented a good- faith effort, and was disappointed that was not enough for the opponents of the fee. The logical next step toward a lasting solution was to do what it took to set the stage for community dialogue. For that reason, she supported the motion. If the only way to have the discussion was by repealing the ordinance, the council needed to take that action. She wanted to ensure a level MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 1 Work Session playing field between the two cities, to fix the flaws in the formula, and develop a package of funding sources to support transportation projects. Mr. Poling favored repealing the TSMF, not because of threats from the County, but because the original intent of the fee was that both cities would have one. Springfield had repealed its fee. He called for a regional dialogue to reach a countywide solution. He acknowledged the difficulty of the issue but indicated optimism that any obstacles could be overcome. He thanked Mr. Green for attending the meeting and for talking to councilors individually. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the motion. She agreed the problem was regional and needed a regional solution. She believed other communities wanted to help Eugene because their residents used Eugene roads. She thought the City had given up too soon on a regional solution. She believed a variety of funding sources should be used. Ms. Taylor called for the cessation of new road construction to save money. Ms. Solomon indicated her willingness to be part of any solution. She asked if it was possible a regional solution could be reached by year's end. Mr. Green responded that the County was willing to participate and partner in a solution. He assured the council that he preferred to advocate for Eugene as one of two urban representatives on the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Solomon said that she was looking for a funding package and allocation formula, and wanted to know if it was reasonable to assume that could be accomplished by 2004. Mr. Green was optimistic that could happen. Mr. Pap8 believed that repealing the fee would be to foreclose its later use. He thanked Mr. Green for attending the meeting, and asked if the two cities had not approached the County prior to enacting the TSMF for a solution. Mr. Green said that was the case, but the County had six measures on the ballot in November 2002, and the board's position at that time was that the timing was not right. He had also personally wanted to see what the State legislature did in terms of transportation funding. Mr. Pap8 said that the cities had also approached the County a year prior to that. Mr. Green said that the board did not believe at that time that it could ask the residents to support a countywide gas tax because of the Road Fund reserves that existed. He thought that it was more possible to make a case to the public now that the need existed and the funding was needed. Mr. Pap8 asked if Mr. Green could commit the other County commissioners to a dialogue. Mr. Green believed that he could provide written assurances that discussion would happen. Mr. Pap8 said that it was his understanding that the County had not been open to a community discussion. Mr. Green said that it was not the board's intent to close dialogue and he was convinced the other board members were interested in a regional dialogue. Mr. Pap8 said he would be interested in seeing that commitment in writing. Mr. Green noted that he had an 18-year history of the County's road fund contributions to the City. He again questioned what Eugene's funding priorities were. If its priorities were for maintenance and preservation, the City could have requested funding for that purpose, rather than funding to reopen Broadway to traffic. He said he would like to discuss those priorities in a broader context. Mr. Pap8 suggested that in the context of that discussion, the parties also discuss the tax dollars paid by Eugene residents that were received by the County and whether Eugene was receiving a proportional amount. He acknowledged the County's past contributions but questioned whether funds were allocated proportionally. It was his perception that the smaller cities had received a greater proportion of dollars than Eugene-Springfield. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap8 said he thought repealing the ordinance was a slap in the face to the members of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee. Ms. Bettman noted her continuing opposition to the fee as well as her fear that repealing it would not put it to rest. She preferred to see the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce place the fee on the ballot so the voters could have the final say. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Green about the City's priorities in terms of its Road Fund expenditures. She said that decisions not to fund maintenance and preservation had been made for decades, and now the council was using the backlog to justify a new tax. She noted Commissioner Bill Dwyer's suggestion that the City package its maintenance projects and then request Road Fund dollars from the County. She wanted to find a way to allocate the City's dollars to its highest priority, which is the maintenance of the existing transportation system. The City could always go to the voters for new projects or request a gas tax to fund new projects as long as it was protecting the City's existing investments. Mayor Torrey indicated he would vote against the motion in the event of a tie. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments. Ms. Nathanson suggested that LCOG could be the vehicle for discussion if the motion passed. She hoped there was an opportunity for a regional discussion and wanted serious attention paid to how the conversation was facilitated so that there was an outcome. Ms. Taylor thought the City had been close to a discussion with the County when it had rushed to pass the TSMF. She hoped it was not implemented. She believed that a board majority indicated interest in a regional discussion. She said that Mr. Green's points related to the City's priorities were well-taken. The City should put maintenance first if that was its priority. She suggested that the heads of each body convene a meeting. Mr. Meisner said that he did not disavow the need for the funding by offering his motion. However, to the extent that the community was focused on retaining the TSMF, it lost other options and the opportunity for a regional community conversation about transportation funding. He acknowledged the work of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee, which worked from a list of several solutions and found a gas tax increase and the TSMF key elements to a funding approach. He agreed with its recommendation, and said he feared losing the tool entirely if the council continued to retain it at this time. Mr. Meisner suggested that the region could use a model based on the United Front to reach a solution. He also liked the mayor's past suggestion that the three jurisdictions look past their jurisdictional boundaries when considering maintenance funding. Mr. Green noted that Commissioner Anna Morrison was also interested in a regional discussion and would be supportive if she was convinced that the focus of the discussion was on maintenance funding. He also noted that the board had not opposed the local gas tax increase. Mr. Green believed that a vehicle registration surcharge was also possible given that Oregon's surcharge was among the lowest in the country. He shared the mayor's interest in a maintenance approach that transcended jurisdictional boundaries. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly indicated support for participating in a regional discussion. However, he did not think the motion was the correct vehicle to get where the council wanted to go. He did not see any changed circumstances that argued the outcome of a regional discussion would be different. Mr. Kelly pointed out to Ms. Nathanson that the council did not have to repeal the ordinance to change the formula of the TSMF. Mr. Kelly thanked the mayor for the extensive work he had done to get a coordinated solution. He asked why a TSMF would fail at the ballot box but a vehicle registration surcharge or gas tax would be successful. They could fail as well, leaving the City in the same position as it was now. City Manager Dennis Taylor asked the council to stay focused on the magnitude of the local problem. It required sustainable levels of revenue far above what was already committed. If pavement management was not addressed in a substantial way, the problem would grow exponentially. He said that the fee was similar to fees in other jurisdictions he had worked with during the course of his career. He said that Eugene's pavement management system was inferior to other services provided by Eugene. The City was losing ground and must do something significant to correct the problem. He expressed support for a regional discussion. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about his support for a regional effort. However, he also questioned what had changed. Mr. Pap8 credited Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey with the City's current emphasis on maintenance funding. He indicated he would ask the manager to find $7 million in the next fiscal year's budget if the motion passed to underwrite maintenance funding. Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Green for participating in the discussion. Regarding the suggestion that the TSMF or gas tax would fail at the ballot, Ms. Bettman believed that its failure would indicate that the voters wanted existing transportation funding used wisely to protect their investment in the system first. She did not think the council should be afraid to put things on the ballot in anticipation they would lose. Ms. Bettman believed that voters were aware of the deteriorating street system and would very possibly vote in support of road maintenance funding. Ms. Bettman noted that the council had recently acted on two occasions to dedicate funds to maintenance and preservation that had historically been diverted to new projects: 1) the reimbursement element of the systems development charge; and 2) federal Surface Transportation Program dollars received through the local metropolitan planning organization. Mayor Torrey said that if the motion passed it would present a test for other elected officials to come forward. If the motion failed, the need would continue to exist. No matter what, he intended to contact Commissioner Bill Dwyer and ask him to sit down and talk. Mayor Torrey said that the City was continually pushed by its residents to expend money for many things, but it did not always have the money to accomplish what was desired. He said that the least "sexy" of all the things the City was asked to fund was road maintenance. Until there was a hole in the road, residents did not demand action. He appreciated Mr. PapS's suggestion that the City identify $7 million in reductions as a test of the community's support. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Poling voting no. The mayor cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed a final vote of 5:4. Speaking to Mr. Papa's remarks, Ms. Taylor noted that former Public Works Department Director Christine Anderson had continually reminded the council of the need for maintenance funding and the fact that the problem merely worsened if not addressed. She commended the work done by staff currently to educate the community about the problem. Ms. Taylor suggested a vehicle registration surcharge had a better chance of passing than a TSMF because it seemed more equitable. The TSMF would be charged to all, even those who did not own a car. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Poling voted yes; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Solomon voted no. B.WORK SESSION: Kaufman Center Status Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Angel Jones and Facilities Manager Glen Svendsen were present for the item. Mayor Torrey briefly left the meeting. Council President Pap~ assumed the chair. Mr. Svendsen provided the staff presentation, noting the policy choices before the council related to the use of the Kaufman Center and the Kaufman Annex. He recommended that the City enter into a one-year lease for the Kaufman Center with the Emerald Empire Council on Aging (EECA), with the option to renew the lease for a second year depending on outcomes achieved, and to allocate $12,000 from the Kaufman Trust Fund to the EECA as a grant for start-up expenses. He further recommended that the City continue to treat the Kaufman Annex as a surplus property. Mr. Pap~ solicited a first round of council questions and comments. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Svendsen indicated that if a nonprofit organization received no support from the City it could use volunteer labor to improve the facility. If the volunteer organization paid for any part of the labor involved and used volunteers for other tasks, it would fall under the requirements of the Bureau of Labor and Industries and pay prevailing wages. Mayor Torrey returned to the meeting and assumed the chair. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about what had changed since staff's earlier statements that the sale of the annex would be difficult because of the conditions of the conditional use permit, Mr. Svendsen said that staff proposed to apply for a historic zone designation for both buildings, which would eliminate the conditional use permit (CUP) and allow for a broader use of activities at the center, helping the EECA meet some of its goals. The two buildings would then be delinked. Mr. Kelly suggested that the application of the historic designation made a mockery of the status if the purpose was to "rip the two apart." Mr. Svendsen suggested that it depended MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 5 Work Session on whether one viewed the two buildings as a unit. The designation related to the buildings themselves as well as the uses. Mr. Kelly asked if the EECA could sublease a room in the center to another entity under the conditions of the CUP. Mr. Svendsen said that it depended on the nature of the use involved. Headquarters or offices for service agencies supporting senior programs would be allowed. The use must be primarily related to the support of senior services. Mr. Kelly suggested that the definition of "support" could then become an issue. For example, a commercial enterprise could provide financial support to the EECA. He asked who enforced the conditions of the CUP. Mr. Svendsen said that it was the Planning Division. Staff would look at the nature of the activities being conducted. Ms. Bettman noted that the property was bequeathed to the City for the use of senior services. While that was not legally binding, she thought that if there was a viable proposal to deliver senior services through the center, the City should make the property available. She discussed the EECA's plans for operating the property and noted her strong support for the agency's proposal. She indicated she had some amendments to offer the motion to make it more consistent with what the agency needed to provide services and to be consistent with the action taken by the Budget Committee in regard to the facility. Mr. PapS, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved that the council adopt Resolution 4773, a resolution authorizing execution of lease with the Emerald Empire Council on Aging (EECA) and further move that the City Manager return to the council at the time of Supplemental Budget #1 with a request to provide an additional $12,000 from the Kaufman Center Trust Fund to the EECA as a grant for start-up expenses. Mr. Pap8 said he could not uncouple the previous discussion from this discussion. He acknowledged the request was relatively small but he preferred to retain any available dollars when possible and thought streets relatively more important than the Kaufman Center in terms of the services the City provided to the community. Mr. Pap8 asked about the physical condition of the annex. Mr. Svendsen said that it was deteriorating. He estimated that $75,000 in work was needed immediately to make the facility usable for the public. He noted code problems associated with the facility that would also require the expenditure of funds. Mr. Pap8 asked if the facility was handicapped accessible. Mr. Svendsen said "no." Installing accessibility features, including converting the bathrooms to be accessible, would cost several thousand additional dollars. Mr. Pap8 asked who was liable for injury at the facility if it was leased to the EECA. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated the lease would stipulate that the nonprofit indemnify the City, but that indemnity was only as good as the financial wherewithal of the nonprofit organization. The City would require the lessee to have insurance. He believed the City would be named as a defendant if someone was hurt and a suit was filed, incurring some legal costs for the City. Mr. Svendsen indicated that the EECA proposed a $1 million policy, which was standard. Mr. Pap8 suggested that the City would have to pay property taxes on any portion of the property not occupied by a nonprofit entity. Ms. Nathanson thought the lease of the Kaufman Center to the EECA would provide a public service and serve a public purpose. She said senior services were a growth area and the need would only increase. In the past she had opposed the closure of publicly owned assets such as MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Westmoreland Community Center and had worked to find ways to keep them open for public purposes. Ms. Nathanson supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman and Ms. Nathanson. She thought the bequest carried a moral obligation and the facility should not be sold. She said that Eugene did not receive as many gifts as many other communities in the country. She thought giving away or selling a gift would discourage residents who wanted to provide similar gifts. Speaking to the issue of what "support" meant, Mr. Meisner expressed hope that the definition was resolved as he did not want to see the EECA lease the space to a commercial enterprise such as, for example, a motorcycle shop, which might provide it with financial support but which he thought would be inconsistent with the use of the building. Mr. Meisner expressed general support for the resolution. He asked how the annex was acquired. Mr. Svendsen said that it was also a gift from Trude Kaufman. Mr. Meisner asked what the City could expect to gain from the sale of the annex, and where would the proceeds go. He asked if the proceeds could be used to support the center's operation. Mr. Svendsen estimated sale of the annex would realize approximately $225,000, and indicated the proceeds would go to the Facilities Reserve. Mr. Meisner was supportive of the motion on the floor and expressed interest in earmarking all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the annex to the operation of the center. Mr. Svendsen clarified that the staff recommendation that the EECA be allocated $12,000 from the Kaufman Trust Fund was in lieu of the use of the annex. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the ordinance by amending Recital E to read "Extensive repairs and renovation will be required to make the Kaufman Senior Center Annex suitable for use by the public and the Kaufman Trust Fund should be used for this purpose"; by amending Section 1 to add "and Annex" following the words "Kaufman Senior Center"; and by amending Section 1 to say that the lease shall be for an initial term of two years at $1, with an option to renew thereafter, depending upon outcomes achieved. Ms. Bettman noted that the terms of the CUP allowed parking to be shared, and if the annex was sold, the EECA would lose parking at the center. She said that licensed and bonded contractors had expressed willingness to volunteer their services for the work that needed to be done on the Kaufman Center and annex, and the money from the trust fund could be used for materials. Ms. Bettman endorsed the proposal as an example of a public/private partnership and said that such partnerships required a subsidy and were accompanied by liabilities. However, the City already such subsidized partnerships in other areas, such as the Science Factory. She thought the amount involved relatively small and it would come from the Kaufman Trust Fund, which was generated through the behest. Mr. Kelly indicated support for the amendment. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the public good involved and with her remarks about the growing demand for senior services. Mr. Kelly believed that there were more uncertainties about the future use of the property if the annex was separated from the center. He wanted to keep the two properties together. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Regarding maintenance, Mr. Kelly said that if there were major maintenance needs not within the center's budget authority, it would be incumbent on the EECA to raise funds to improve the facility. He urged that the EECA be given the chance to proceed. Speaking to Mr. Papa's remarks about the need for road funding, Mr. Kelly acknowledged the importance of that service, but pointed out that the money in question was very small in terms of that need, and it was one-time money. He did not want the council to get "hung up" on technical details that could preclude the real public good that could be generated by the proposal. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Jones that the amount left in the Kaufman Trust Fund totaled about $67,000, and suggested that the money from the sale of the annex could be used to underwrite the costs of repairs to the main house. Mr. Pap~ liked Mr. Meisner's idea to earmark the proceeds from the sale of the annex, and suggested that the proceeds could be used to maintain the Kaufman Center. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Svendsen said that the Kaufman Center had about 7 percent improvement needs in relationship to its value; the annex had about 34 percent of value needed in repairs. The repairs needed for the center would cost about $180,000. He clarified that $20,000 of the $67,000 left in the trust fund was committed to maintenance of the center. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Bettman regarding the City's other partnerships, Mr. Pap~ said he preferred to view each situation on a risk/reward basis. He thought the annex had more value to the community if sold and the proceeds used to maintain the center. City Manager Taylor recommended passage of the staff recommendation, saying it could be implemented immediately. City Manager Taylor clarified that the staff had made the recommendation before the council because it did not want the proposal to be dependent on the EECA's use of the annex. The staff- recommended motion would allow staff to go to work right away to determine if the annex could be sold. If, over the course of the year, there were concrete proposals to improve the annex for use in another way, staff would have the opportunity to come back to the council and outline what would work. The amendment would put pressure on staff and the center to have programs operating in a structure that was questionable, and could exhaust the trust fund for the renovations for the sake of a modest revenue stream. He said that passage of the original motion would allow staff to work on a contract with the EECA that was consistent with the way the City contracted with other entities, and to review the agency's performance at the end of one year, and the council could still have an opportunity at the end of the first performance year to revisit some of these ideas without trying to guess what they might be. Ms. Nathanson wanted the EECA to have time to come up with another solution. She could not tell from the motion if its passage would allow for that. She wanted the center itself to remain viable for many years. She said that it appeared from the amendment that the entire trust fund could be consumed the first year for improvements. Ms. Jones said that was possible. Mayor Torrey observed that the issue raised the question of how the City paid to maintain the facilities that it accepted. He advocated for a timely decision. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she objected to the staff-recommended motion because it was inconsistent with the Budget Committee motion. It only gave the EECA one year and left the organization in uncertainty about the second year. She recalled that the Budget Committee approved a two-year time period. Speaking to the use of the trust fund, Ms. Bettman said that the City's budget authority for $22,000 from the trust fund for major maintenance was to be used for materials, and the labor was to be donated. She compared the proposal before the council to its recent decision to spend $92,000 to underground power lines, and asked how that expenditure would impact the lives of children and seniors and the needs that they had, which were increasing daily now that the State had backed away from funding those services. Ms. Jones assured the council that she was continually looking at partnership opportunities. She said that the partnership with the EECA was ideal in terms of service provision. Her concern was how the dollars in question were being leveraged and how they were being spent in a manner that was consistent with the other requests for partnerships she continually receives. She said that the one-year time period was based on the fact that the City's contracts with service providers were based on performance. She received many proposals from organizations about the great things they could do, but until she had identified outcomes, all that remained were great expectations. She wanted to keep the City's approach to partnerships consistent, and wanted to ensure that they included clear outcomes that must be achieved by the provider. Ms. Jones believed that it was speculative as to whether volunteers would be able to do the repairs that were needed at both the annex and the center. She said that she had recently visited the facilities, and it was her professional evaluation that repairs must occur to the annex before it could be used at all. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment and suggested that the amendment be tabled so the council could view the facilities in question. Ms. Bettman feared the one-year time line would be insufficient for the needed repairs to be done and to get the programs established. She said that if the EECA was a new partner, she would agree with Ms. Jones, but she believed that the EECA had already demonstrated competency through its current operations at the center. Ms. Nathanson indicated she would not support the amendment. She suggested that the constrained time line could help the EECA as it was fund raising and recruiting volunteers because it established a firm end date. She said that the council wanted the agency to survive, and she recognized it was not unusual for such organizations to have a small revenue stream, such as from a gift shop, to support their activities. She believed that the City would be flexible with the time line if it could see that the EECA was making progress. The vote on the amendment to the motion was 4:4; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Meisner voted yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Poling voted no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the amendment, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The motion passed, 8:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the meeting by three minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved that the net proceeds from the sale of the annex be dedicated to the Kaufman Trust Fund. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 10 Work Session