Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/12/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall November 12, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap6, 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: Transportation Systems Development Charges City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that there had been requests to revisit the alternatives for the adjustment to the transportation systems development charges (SDC). He introduced Fred McVey, Engineering Data Services manager, who was present for the item. Mr. McVey reported that staff had interpreted the request for a work session on this topic as direction to focus on transportation SDCs as they relate to downtown development. He outlined the options for council action as included on page 194 of the Agenda Item Summary (ALS). Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Mr. Poling stated that he had requested the work session after the meeting in July of 2003 at which the council voted down the amendments related to the SDCs based on concerns that it had "short-changed" the City. Mr. Meisner requested more information on the first option, that of directing the City Manager to prepare modifications to the transportation SDC methodology to include adjustments which further consider reduced capacity demand of development within the downtown area. He asked how the downtown would be treated if designated as a node for transportation purposes in comparison to the geographic adjustment done before. Mr. McVey stated that a geographic adjustment was a good example of a technical basis for providing an adjustment to the SDCs that recognized the reduced impact of development downtown in relation to other areas of the city. He said the adjustment would result in a 15 percent reduction in SDCs for the downtown area, but this would correlate with an increase in an SDC in areas the council had expressed concern about in previous deliberations. He noted that another possible method, if determined that downtown development generated a lower number of trips on average than development in other parts of the City could use reduced trip rates in the equation, but this data had not been gathered at this point in time. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. McVey estimated it would take approximately six months to study trip generation from downtown. He stated that the nodal designation would result in a 10 percent MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 1 Regular Meeting reduction in the vehicle portion of the transportation fee, roughly a 9 percent reduction in the overall SDC. Mr. Meisner asked if it would be possible to have a distinct class of node for the downtown area. Mr. McVey surmised it would be feasible to pass a resolution designating a certain treatment of the downtown area in the context of the nodal adjustment. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. McVey stated there was data on project expenditures downtown. However, he felt it misleading to look at project expenditures on a localized basis as the system as a whole served the traveling public. Ms. Bettman responded that, should a decision to collect fees within a specific boundary be considered, it would be informative to have the data. She asserted that the technical justification for the rate changes was a lesser need for SDCs for projects built downtown due to less trip generation and this demonstrated a need for the rate changes. Ms. Bettman supported the staff recommendation for the methodology as it was fair and responsive to the council's request to be revenue-neutral. She favored the existing methodology. She noted the preponderance of new development projects lay on the periphery of the City. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. McVey said there was a waiver of transportation SDCs for low-income housing. He added that the downtown area was assessed SDCs as a multi-tenant office or shopping center, which provided some incentives for development. Ms. Nathanson commented that it was not surprising that the investment fell largely in the development of new roads and services to new residences. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. McVey said he could not speak directly to the data from Lane Transit District (LTD) on how many trips were made to downtown as a destination and how many trips were a ~pass through," but he felt it could be useful. Ms. Nathanson felt there were incentives and discounts in place for development downtown. She asked if there were other reasonable and affordable options that could be put into place. Mr. Kelly reiterated his support for the ~revenue-neutral" proposal that had been defeated at the meeting in July. Mr. McVey said, in response to a question from Mr. Kelly, that the waiver for low-income housing was currently a waiver and not a subsidy. Mr. Meisner asked the boundary of the downtown node. Mr. McVey explained it was not yet designated as a node. Mr. Meisner supported the designation of the downtown area as a node for transportation SDC purposes and said he wanted to direct staff to undertake this. Mr. McVey commented that the council would have the opportunity through looking at the Downtown Plan Update to look into how this could occur. Mr. Pap~ asked if any developments had been held back because of the council action. Mr. McVey replied that he had not heard any anecdotal evidence to that end. He felt it was not having a large impact on choices as to where development would locate. Mayor Torrey cited several calls he had received from people who had moved from one part of downtown to another part of downtown and had been slapped with substantial fees, though the business activity had not MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 2 Regular Meeting changed. He asked staff to provide information to him regarding this. Mr. McVey said he would look into it and provide a memorandum to the Mayor. B. WORK SESSION: Update on Systems Development Change Legislation City Manager Dennis Taylor, noting the previous discussion, averred it would be beneficial to receive a legislative update on SDCs at this time. Mr. McVey noted that he had summarized the key changes and their relevancy for policy changes in the AlS. He reported that the primary legislation was Senate Bill 939 affecting SDCs. He added that a number of other bills had been introduced but had not gained ;;political traction." He related that he had participated in a work group to talk about this bill as it was written and rewritten. He commented that the bill that passed was less problematic for the City than some previous versions. Mr. McVey related the primary impact of the bill was to current transportation and parks SDCs, which were based on a methodology that was no longer allowed under the law as they use a level of service (LOS) methodology, which charged new development costs proportionate to the costs that the community had already incurred in establishing capacity. He said people in the building industry had concerns with that methodology and had been successful in eliminating it. He related that in the future, a methodology will be required to use a capital improvement project (CIP) list as a basis for the SDC. The parks and open spaces SDC was under current review and, in light of the change, he recommended a review of transportation SDCs be undertaken following review of the parks SDC. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stressed that the major effect of the changes Mr. McVey described was to elevate the importance of the CIP or a similar plan. He predicted a greater level of detail would be needed in the CIP. Ms. Bettman called it ironic that the Rates Advisory Committee (RAC) had initially recommended that transportation SDCs be based upon a CIP and had, ;;at the behest of the building industry," chosen to retain the LOS methodology. She opined that it ultimately would make the government more accountable as it would result in more vigilance when adopting a CIP. She asked Mr. McVey to speak to the stumbling blocks the RAC had encountered when trying to move toward a project-based methodology. Mr. McVey explained that, to a certain extent, a project-based methodology for the determination of SDCs was built upon future projects. He averred that the more contentious or controversial future projects were, the less comfortable certain people were with SDCs based upon them. He noted there at one time, there had been an expensive bridge over the river in the proposed TransPlan, and based on this the SDCs could be increased, although there was enough objection to the bridge that it was dropped from the plan. Ms. Bettman asked how a project-based methodology could be responsive to deletions or additions to the project list. Mr. McVey explained that, as the law was written, when such deletions or additions occurred and it affected the SDC rate, the City would be required to provide notice and potentially have a hearing on the SDC impact of the change on the CIP. He noted that previously the statutes allowed an agency to modify its project list at any time. Mr. Meisner remarked that regardless of the two comparative means, the legislation mandated a new process MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 3 Regular Meeting for the two local SDCs. He asked staff to provide its best guess as to the consequence of using a project-list based SDC and how it compared to the current methodology. Additionally, he wondered if the City must return a portion of the SDC collected should a significant project be dropped. Mr. McVey estimated that, when looking at a project-based SDC, the improvement fee portion was approximately $1,200 per trip while the current SDC fee was around $800 per trip. He noted that the parks master planning work was not yet completed and so it was unknown how the SDC rates would be affected. He predicted they would be similar to the present rates. Mr. Meisner asked staff to consider whether a developer would have legal recourse to pursue return of an SDC based on a project that did not come to fruition. Mr. Lidz responded that there would not be legal recourse as the CIP was a legislative document and, when one project came off, there would likely be another project added on. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. McVey said there was not much controversy as this bill made its way through the legislature. Mayor Torrey suggested that someone could increase the CIP and subsequently increase the SDC with only a public hearing. He expressed some incredulity that no one had taken issue with this. Jason Heuser, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, explained that the work group had vented these concerns and the building industry had been comfortable with it. He related that the League of Oregon Cities had testified before the committee that the bill was a collaborative effort and all parties were in agreement on it. Mr. Pap~ noted that Eugene was one of only several cities left in the State of Oregon that still based its SDCs on the LOS methodology. Ms. Bettman commented that the SDCs had not matched the need or the expenditures on new capacities. C. ACTION: Resolution 4780 Responding to the Remand of Ordinance Nos. 20258 and 20259 Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Resolution 4780 responding to the remand of Ordinance Nos. 20258 and 20259, along with that resolution's ~Attachment A" ¢~Explanation of Findings"). Mr. Meisner questioned why the resolution was coming before the council prior to the issuance of a new report by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) which could potentially alter the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP). He noted that the other three jurisdictions that were going to adopt the resolution would not see it until January, 2004. City Attorney Emily Jerome responded that the other jurisdictions would be considering the resolution in December and not January. She commented that no one knew at this point precisely what would be in the ODOT plan. She predicted it would be akin to the policy decisions approved by the City Council in July 2003. She said once the TransPlan and the WEWP had been established, they might or might not require further review. She advised taking the action before the council and %losing the door" as it would be cleaner from a legal standpoint. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Kelly asserted that, while it could be legally "cleaner" to pass this resolution, from a fiscal standpoint, it would be more prudent to address the resolution in January after the ODOT report was available. Tom Boyatt, Oregon Department of Transportation staff, stated that senior staff from the City had met with ODOT staff and considered the evaluation report and the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) issue to be different issues. He stressed that ODOT was trying to build a project and in order to do that had to reevaluate the data. Ms. Jerome affirmed that the record was closed on this matter. She commented that she was unable to speak precisely to costs, but in land use even if circumstances change in time, the item on remand was bound to the record the council reviewed initially, unless there was a decision to reopen the record. She stated that, substantively, the council was bound to what was in the existing 19-volume record. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to table the item until January 26, 2004. Ms. Solomon conveyed her support for the resolution and admonished councilors to quit stalling. Ms. Nathanson concurred that the council should move forward on the vote. She opined that it was not only cleaner, it was important from a process perspective. She stressed that the council was asked to address certain technical and detailed points and should something come before the council in the future that required changing, the council could address it at that time. Ms. Bettman agreed that the resolution was simply a finalization of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) process. However, she felt the fact that it had been presented in a manner that preempted the evaluation report was unsettling. She asserted there had been meetings that she had not been present for and, though she had asked for a summary of these discussions, she had not received such a summary. She alleged the information was concealed from some of the councilors and questioned why the information was not available. She supported the motion to table. Mr. Meisner supported the motion to table. He suggested the remand may be somewhat directionless without having seen the evaluation report. Mr. Kelly called the motion to table a move toward more efficiency, as it would eliminate having to readdress the issue should further information alter it. Ms. Taylor voiced her support for the motion to table the item. She asserted the public also did not know what was being voted on. Mr. Meisner clarified his vote had nothing to do with the findings and commended the staff for the work that had been done. Ms. Nathanson asked what the relationship was between the evaluation report, which might or might not ask the City Council to do something different, and the adoption of findings. Ms. Jerome responded that even if the report suggested a substantial change in boundary, staff would most likely bring the same resolution before the council. She stressed the importance of not "leaving a LUBA remand hanging there." MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 5 Regular Meeting Ms. Bettman questioned the process. She noted that the previous LUBA remand had been addressed through an ordinance and the one before the council at the present meeting was a resolution. Ms. Jerome explained that the resolution did not adopt findings. She stated that the previous LUBA remand had involved a plethora of issues raised in the appeal. She said in some cases LUBA did some research on its own to determine whether the record needed more information, but in this case LUBA was only concerned with a couple of issues and remanded in a way that did not require the City to reopen the record. She clarified that the council was not adopting additional findings and the resolution was a remand response and explanation of findings so did not need to be in the form of an ordinance. Mr. Pap6 raised a point of order. He questioned whether the discussion was still centered on the motion to table. Ms. Bettman responded that the motion to table brought up the process and the discussion on the process should include understanding why it was a resolution and not an ordinance as well as why it should be voted upon at the present meeting. Mr. Kelly, noting Ms. Jerome had stated that nothing in the reevaluation report would cause staff to change the explanation of findings, said that one sub-assignment of error had to do with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction. He suggested that the reevaluation report could contain a change in the intersection between the Parkway and Beltline Road, which could radically change the VMT. Ms. Jerome responded that the assignment of error there indicated the City and County needed to make policies that implemented some specific rules. She stated that the City explained to LUBA that the policies were not needed, the City did not have such policies, and this would not change regardless of how a new facility would affect VMT. Mr. Kelly disagreed with this. Ms. Taylor questioned the reason this resolution needed to be addressed at the present meeting. Ms. Jerome responded that the reason it was before the council was that staff had received the final opinion from the court on October 8 which finalized the court actions. She commented that the resolution had been reviewed by the County Attorney, who would be bringing it before the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Nathanson voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted in opposition and the motion to table the resolution failed on a final vote of 5:4. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome clarified that an ordinance was a greater process than a resolution. She stressed that the resolution could be conducted as an ordinance, but there was no legal reason to do so, as there was no policy language being adopted. Mr. Pap6 likened the discussion to West Eugene Parkway (WEP) ;;bashing." He asked for reassurance that the document before the council was %ullet-proof." Ms. Jerome affirmed it was a solid document. Mr. Pap6 asked why the remand was not left open. Ms. Jerome said it could be appealed again, but the matters would be limited to these four. She stated that the policy choice had been made to go forward with the ordinances. She explained that the changes were technically in the plans but they would not be acknowledged until they were either not appealed or until a completely favorable opinion was rendered from the courts. She further clarified that the status of ~in effect but not acknowledged" left a city open to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting challenges when decisions were made and, without action, staff would be motivated to come before the council and ask the council to undo the amendments. Mr. Pap6 supported the motion. In response to Ms. Taylor, City Manager Taylor stated that, though a public hearing was allowable for anything, in this case the City was trying to %lose the door" on the LUBA remand in that the resolution was a clarification of the existing record. Ms. Jerome said, in response to a further question from Ms. Taylor, that the provisions were already in the plan and a vote at the present meeting would finalize the policy direction. She stated that the ordinances adopted in July 2002 allowed ODOT to go forward if it wanted to. She added that whether that happened was up to the determination of ODOT. A no vote would result in the legal staff returning to the council to ask the council to take the parkway from its plans. Mr. Kelly expressed his opposition to the motion. He requested the City Manager provide a memorandum informing the City Council as to how much money had been spent on legal counsel and how much the Public Works Department had spent related to the WEP. Mr. Meisner said he would vote to approve the resolution, though he continued to believe the timing to be poor as it was independent of the other jurisdictions involved and ahead of the ODOT report. Ms. Nathanson voiced regret that the council sometimes became too positional. She called the council ;;smart people who sometimes look at things in a different way." She felt the housekeeping issue was a process that had been voted on and supported by both the City Council and the public. She asked the council to consider whether it was voting on the resolution to indicate a position on the larger issue or whether it was voting to merely implement something that the council as a majority had moved forward and the public had voted for. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to adopt the resolution at the present meeting. He stressed that it provided the opportunity to indicate the position of the council before the other jurisdictions. He felt it reaffirmed the public vote and would send a message that the project was still moving forward. He asserted that ODOT was waiting for direction and could potentially take the funding elsewhere. Ms. Bettman reiterated that this resolution was a preemptive endorsement of the project and a manipulation of the process. Mr. Kelly asserted that the vote would not move the project forward. He cited other processes the WEP must still go through. Mr. Meisner reiterated that the resolution was an approval of the response to the remand. He supported the resolution. The motion to approve Resolution 4780 passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:24 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 7 Regular Meeting Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 12003 ICentral Services DepartmentlCity Counci llcc0 3 i i 12m i. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting