Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/26/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 26, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Piercy reported that last week she had attended the State Summit on Homelessness and distributed materials to councilors. She said a meeting would be held with local service providers and advocates to discuss new approaches to assisting the homeless population. She announced she would be attending a Mayor’s Institute on City Design and looked forward to sharing information about Eugene and returning with ideas from other communities. She noted that there would be an executive session during the regular meeting, prior to the agenda item related to Measure 37. Mr. Pryor said that a June 15 meeting of the Lane Metro Partnership focused a financial status report, current activities and future fundraising and development plans. He said the Human Services Commission adopted a budget on June 19 and met with the new Centro Latino Americano director, Jorge Navarro. Ms. Bettman commented that the meeting was the council’s first live webcast. She reported on her attendance at a recent Hate Crimes Conference in Portland, which she said was very constructive and educational but had far fewer participants than anticipated. She suggested that Eugene host the next conference and said she would provide the council with a report summarizing the workshops she attended. Mr. Papé said he attended a meeting recently at the Kaufmann Senior Center was amazed at the vitality and activity. He felt the center was a good example of partnership between the City and a private nonprofit organization. He said the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Executive Committee heard a report at its last meeting from Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green regarding the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He said the LCOG board met last week and approved a letter expressing concern about the MPC and lack of action on the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). He raised the question of whether the council should reconsider its resolution of May 24, 2006. He feared that if the MPC was unable to reach resolution at its July 13, 2006, meeting LCOG might withdraw its delegation of Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) authority to the MPC. He asked for direction from the council on how to vote when the matter was considered by LCOG. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 1 Work Session th Mr. Poling related he attended the celebration of Sacred Heart Medical Center’s 70 anniversary in the community. He attended a dinner with visiting dignitaries from Thailand who were in Eugene preparing for th a visit from the princess in honor of the 60 anniversary of the monarch’s reign. He said that many books would be donated to local libraries in recognition of the event. He said the princess would arrive the week of July 13, 2006. Mr. Kelly felt that Mr. Papé had clear direction from the council regarding his representation on the LCOG executive committee, both in terms of the resolution and a prior motion regarding the MTIP. He remained optimistic about the situation and felt that MPC members would agree that collaboration would provide the best chance to move transportation improvements forward. Regarding the LCOG board’s letter, he said passage of the council’s resolution by the MPC would resolve those concerns. He noted that the year before last the council had provided a budget allocation for a cultural policy review and reported that the Mayor’s Committee on Cultural Policy Review had its first meeting recently and he thought it was a good start to a comprehensive look at arts and culture in Eugene and the roles of the City and community in sustaining and improving the arts and culture scene. Ms. Taylor conveyed the Crest Drive Neighbors concern about potholes in their neighborhood. She asked how an attractive nuisance on City-owned land should be addressed. City Manager Taylor replied that if the information was provided to him he would confer with the city attorney on how to proceed. Ms. Taylor noted the number of teenagers hanging out in downtown and emphasized the need for a youth center in the downtown area. She asked how much money the City gave LCOG and whether LCOG’s budget was entirely comprised of contributions from member jurisdictions. City Manager Taylor replied that the City paid membership dues each year of approximately $80,000. He said that LCOG’s budget consisted of contributions from member organizations, plus grants from the State and federal government. Mr. Papé pointed out that many organizations in addition to municipalities were members of LCOG. Mr. Kelly added that LCOG received a majority funding for transportation planning from State and federal pass- through funds. Ms. Taylor wondered whether LCOG should be abolished instead of the MPC and questioned what benefits the City received from LCOG. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Papé that the LCOG issue was worth of discussion and asked for clarification of several issues before that discussion occurred: enabling language that vested LCOG with the authority to make transportation decisions, whether the qualification to fulfill that function still existed with region’s designation as a Transportation Management Area (TMA) and a breakdown of the allocation of transporta- tion planning funds. City Manager Taylor announced that he had been invited to be a nominee for one of the three city manager positions on the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) board. He said the election would occur at the LOC’s September 2006 meeting and he would submit his name if it was the desire of the council. Mr. Papé remarked that road improvements in the Crest Drive area were slowed pending street designation and contact-sensitive design. He questioned whether it was appropriate to take care of potholes before the other issues were resolved. City Manager Taylor said there were significant potholes on Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard but there was not a base that allowed for pothole repair and sections were scheduled for a larger patch; however, that was not a significant improvement because of the nature of the deteriorated road. He said that $250,000 was budgeted for design work and if a concept that was agreeable to all could be MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 2 Work Session developed it was possible to have a local improvement district by the next construction season. He would provide the council was a memorandum on the status of design work. B. WORK SESSION: Youth/School-based Services Local Option Levy City Manager Taylor introduced Recreation Services Director Renee Grube to present information on the City’s role in providing access to after-school programs for children and youth. Ms. Grube stated that the Bethel and 4J school districts had identified alternative strategies to address their funding needs, but the City faced a dilemma as a significant portion of its after-school programs were funded by the levy and other grant sources. She said the levy was established in recognition of the core service gaps that existed in schools and youth programs and significant strides had been made over the past four years in service to youth and families, especially those who had difficulty accessing services. She said the new approach of asset development played a key role in addressing priorities such as reducing youth violence and risk-taking behaviors, reinforcing in-school learning and student achievement and expanding partnerships and collaboration with other youth service providers. She showed a video to illustrate the high return on the community’s investment. She noted that Working City footage was utilized in creating the video. Ms. Piercy commented that she was pleased to see the asset-based approach as there was a big difference between trying to fix problems for youth and actually giving them the tools to be successful. She said the Boys and Girls Club had recently reported it had received other financial commitments as a result of the City’s financial contribution. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Piercy’s appreciation for the asset-based model and commended staff for their efforts. He said there was no question the services were important, particularly those services that were not offered in the marketplace or otherwise inaccessible. He understood the reason for the staff’s suggestion that the levy not be renewed and concurred with the recommendation to move services into the General Fund. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to incor- porate some or all of the City’s core youth services within the General fund rather than through a local option levy by FY08. Ms. Taylor asked how the Fun for All sites were chosen. Ms. Grube said sites were selected because of a large number of either low-income families or youth. She said locations were evaluated each year based on the previous year’s attendance. Ms. Taylor asked why there were no sites in southeast Eugene and what was meant by “culturally competent” staff. Ms. Grube replied that there were Fun for All programs at University Park and Amazon Pool that served southeast Eugene residents. She said that culturally competent staff who were those who understood services to a variety of cultures, provided services that were inclusive and were trained in making services accessible to the entire community. Ms. Bettman said she was a firm supporter of the levy and youth services; the only area for improvement was in the area of the arts as music and dance could be better incorporated into the menu of services. She supported the staff recommendation to move youth services into the General Fund but might offer an amendment to refer the matter to the citizen members of the Budget Committee for a review of services in MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 3 Work Session the levy and currently funded through the General Fund and recommendation on how to prioritize those services. Mr. Pryor said he would support the recommendation to incorporate youth services in the General Fund with extreme reluctance and regretted the need to make that decision. He said the community had stepped up to support the children of Eugene in the past and that demonstrated a shared concern and common focus on youth. He did not want to see all of the achievements in youth services slowly starve as they competed within the General Fund. Mr. Papé said he thought it was already the intent of the citizen members of the Budget Committee to review youth services, including the levy services. City Manager Taylor replied that the citizen members had identified at the end of the budget process several areas they wanted to revisit prior to presentation of the FY08 budget and youth services could be one of those areas, consistent with the discussions of funding core services within the General Fund revenue streams. Mr. Papé asked about a qualifying amendment when the levy was placed on the ballot that required rollback of the levy to the amount the school districts needed if support from other funding sources increased. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson replied that a provision in the original council resolution required an annual analysis of the State’s contribution to the school districts and comparison to the levy. He said up to FY07 the amount from the State had not equaled or exceeded the benchmark. Mr. Papé asked how services to nonresidents, such as some 4J participants, were handled. Ms. Grube said the levy provided that nonresidents were subsidized to a lesser degree in school programs and City programs charged a 20 percent surcharge for all nonresidents. She said it was difficult to determine whether the surcharged covered all costs of serving nonresidents but it was based on models from other jurisdictions. Mr. Papé commented that services to youth, whether inside or outside of the City, should be important to everyone and he hoped the County would agree to participate in the future. Mr. Poling asked when a final court ruling on the tax question was expected. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that the City had requested expedited written and oral arguments in the hope that a ruling would occur by the end of August, but the court did not indicate when a decision would be made. Mr. Poling said he, like Mr. Pryor, would very reluctantly support the recommendation. He felt the physical, mental and social welfare of youth in the community was extremely important for the future and was concerned that moving the youth services into the General Fund would result in cuts in future budget cycles. Ms. Piercy remarked that recreation programs were a mix of recreation and physical activities and served a social and human service need. She was concerned about moving them into the social services category and not thinking of the services in a more comprehensive way. Mr. Kelly agreed there was a danger in regarding all of the activities as fungible and agreed with the suggestion to have the citizen members of the Budget Committee take a broader look at youth services. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to read as fol- lows: “I move to direct the City Manager to seek a recommendation from the citi- zen members of the Budget Committee for some or all of the City’s core youth ser- MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 4 Work Session vices within the General Fund rather than through a local option levy by FY08. The Budget Committee shall do a comprehensive review of youth services in the current levy and in the General Fund for purposes of their recommendation.” Ms. Bettman said her intent was for the Budget Committee to review the amount spent on youth services and priorities, whether funded through the levy or General Fund. She said that comprehensive look was needed in order to make decisions about service cuts. Mr. Kelly agreed with the idea of a comprehensive review of what services were funded from the levy and General Fund, regardless of whether cuts were necessary. Mr. Pryor said the question for him was the degree to which the review process would dictate what services were provided or cut. He said it appeared that the Budget Committee would be deciding what recreation services were provided instead of the City’s professional staff making those recommendations. He was not opposed to the Budget Committee’s review from a budgetary or financial standpoint but was reluctant to have a body not trained in recreation services or familiar with the integration of those services start prioritizing those services. He did not think he could support the amendment as proposed. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s concerns. She was also concerned about the other expectations of the Budget Committee and assigning another large project. She referred to her experience on the Budget Committee when the issue of transportation was examined and encouraged a larger discussion of the Budget Committee’s responsibilities during the interim. Mr. Kelly remarked that the transportation review was a good example of what the Budget Committee could accomplish beyond just budgetary matters and offer reassurance that both staff and the Budget Committee only made recommendations; it was the council that made the decisions. He noted that the proposed amendment specifically stated that the Budget Committee would make a recommendation. He felt that the citizen members of the committee represented the closest proxy to the person in the street and could provide the council with recommendations on both fiscal and nonfiscal issues which the council in consultation with staff could decide upon. Ms. Bettman said that prioritization was part of the purview of the Budget Committee as everything could not be funded. She said the committee was established to make recommendations to the council on matters such as shifting services to the General Fund. She said that the citizen members of the Budget Committee would work closely with staff and had indicated during the last budget cycle a desire to take a comprehen- sive look at the budget. Mr. Pryor said he appreciated the points raised by the previous speakers but preferred recommendations from professional staff with input from other sources. He did not see a compelling value to the additional step proposed in the amendment. Mr. Papé said he would likely support the motion because the recommendations from an earlier Budget Committee on transportation issues were healthy for the community. He felt it was likely that committee members would advocate for sustained funding for programs and services. City Manager Taylor commented that his only hesitation about the assignment with regard to the citizen members was how it would fit in to the existing work program in terms of time and resources. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said the major challenge was timing as funding could be provided from the council’s contingency if other sources were not available. He said it was necessary for the review to occur in the fall as the budget was developed early in the year and suggested that one or two meetings of the full Budget Committee could be added to the fall schedule. Ms. Piercy noted that one of the challenges was to develop procedures for responding to funding requests within a matrix that provided a comprehensive look at services and priorities and enabled the council to make thoughtful decisions about those requests. Ms. Taylor said she would support the amendment and while the council would make the decisions it would be with the advice of staff and the Budget Committee. The motion to amend passed, 4:3; Mr. Pryor, Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 7:0. C. WORK SESSION: Railroad Quiet Zone Update City Manager Taylor introduced Traffic Engineer Tom Larsen to discuss options that could lead to a quieter downtown. Mr. Larsen said a quiet zone as defined by the railroad was a cessation of the routine crossing horns; it would not quiet warning horns, such as a train leaving the station or vehicle or pedestrian on the tracks. He said the $2 million in additional railroad detection/pre-emption equipment estimated earlier was not required. He said no State or federal funds were available for acquiring a quiet zone; some funding was available from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for safety improvements but ODOT preferred the closure of streets that crossed the railroad, which was contrary to connectivity requirements in the development code. He said a recently established quiet zone in Klamath Falls had failed the review process and was in the negotiation process. He noted there was some potential for ODOT through the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to close crossings if they were considered to be redundant or unsafe based on the crash history, independent of funding. He indicated that the City’s policy was to convert one-way streets to two- way and ODOT would prefer one-way streets. Ms. Piercy asked if ODOT would move to close streets even if the City chose not to. Mr. Larsen replied that all crossings were regulated by the PUC, but it would take something dramatic at a particular crossing for the PUC to take that action. He noted that Eugene was in the Cascadia Corridor and rail traffic, particularly freight, was on the increase; ODOT, the PUC and railroads were concerned about what safety improvements could be made. He said the most likely location would be the six crossings in six blocks at Lincoln Street/Lawrence Street, Washington Street/Jefferson Street and Madison Street/Monroe Street. City Manager Taylor added there was a conflict between the City’s view of those crossings and ODOT’s view, but closing at-grade crossings had been a priority for railroad transportation departments for the last 30 years, especially as data was available to identify problematic crossings. Ms. Piercy said she had heard from many constituents about the decibel level of trains and the impact on people throughout the community. Mr. Larsen said that a new Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rule adopted last year capped train horn sound levels at 110 decibels and under that rule railroads had gone to a MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 6 Work Session time-based routine crossing that reduced the duration of the horn, but that was somewhat offset by the increased traffic. Ms. Piercy observed that none of the crossings mentioned in the agenda materials were in the Bethel area. Mr. Larsen replied that the downtown location was a place to start exploring the idea of a quiet zone. Ms. Bettman asked for a clarification of the public process associated with establishing a quiet zone. Mr. Larsen said the public process had not yet been defined and agreed it would need to be carefully crafted to involve citizens. He said the question before the council was whether to even begin the process of creating a quiet zone, including the possibility of changing the direction of travel and closing crossings. Ms. Bettman asked how much money might be available through State Section 130 funding for crossing safety improvements. Mr. Larsen said it was a negotiated process with the State, depending on what the City was willing to do with respect to closing crossings. He said the initial offer from the State required closing half the crossings, which seemed untenable to the community, and the State was willing to negotiate on that issue. He indicated that no specific level of funding had been discussed. Ms. Bettman said the motion would need to specify that a range of options would be studied. She said the impact of closures and conversions to one-way on the street system needed to be examined, including whether the one-way conversion could occur on only a portion of a street. Mr. Kelly appreciated Mr. Larsen’s pursuit of information and options as the quiet zone was an important quality of life issue, particularly if the City wanted to encourage more residential development in the downtown area. He shared Ms. Bettman’s concern and emphasis on the public process as the motion seemed to imply that action to close crossings would be taken without further public involvement. He suggested rephrasing of the motion to direct the City Manager to study rather than take the necessary steps to obtain State Section 130 funding and require a public input process prior to construction of any improvements. Ms. Taylor agreed that a public process should precede any action. She was concerned that action was being proposed for safety reasons when the actual problem was noise. She asked if there was evidence that any of the crossings was unsafe. Mr. Larsen replied that only the High Street crossing had a crash and that was several years ago; while crossings were inherently dangerous none of the crossing stood out in terms of repeated crashes. Ms. Taylor said she had heard from residents who lived near the tracks that the sound did not bother them. She was not certain how many people were bothered by train noise and was not willing to vote for the motion as presented in the agenda item summary (AIS) or spend staff time on the matter until there was public input. She did not favor closing streets or returning to one-way streets. Mr. Papé agreed with the need for public input before changing streets. He said the City’s connectivity policy should be examined and if necessary exceptions made for the railroad corridor. Mr. Poling asked about the nature of the High Street crossing crash and history of crashes at crossings. Mr. Larsen said that a pedestrian ran into the side of the engine at High Street and he was not aware of any other accidents at rail crossings. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Poling asked if closure of crossings would prevent bicycles and pedestrians from crossing. He felt the biggest problem faced by the railroad within urban areas was from pedestrians and bicyclists, not vehicles. He said before any staff time or money was spent on closing streets there should be a comprehensive look at the entire area and possible collateral damage to the neighborhood from closures, including emergency vehicle access and response time. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to study the necessary steps to close up to four railroad crossings and/or convert streets to one-way at railroad crossings in order to obtain State Section 130 funding for crossing safety improvements. No closings or conversions will be constructed until a public process has been completed, with a return to the council for final approval. Ms. Solomon emphasized the importance of a public process to assess the impact and gauge community reaction to closures or conversions. Ms. Bettman said the quiet zone was being pursued because of livability issues in downtown, but the agenda materials did not provide information on decibel levels and whether closing four crossings would apprecia- bly decrease the decibel level, which was an important issue for her. She added that the construction of barriers and fences associated with street closures would detract from neighborhoods. She pointed out that there was a universe of variables and menu of options to choose from and would support the motion to pursue further study. Mr. Papé asked about the location of two unused crossing referred to in the AIS. Mr. Larsen replied that th one was on Garfield Street at 4 Avenue and the other at Cleveland Street and Cross Street. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Larsen said that federal Section 130 funds were available for safety improvements to rail crossings and for crossing closure; the quiet zone process was completely different and federal funds were not available. He said that federal funding for safety improvements could be obtained and the City could collaterally make progress toward a quiet zone. City Manager Taylor said the policy question before the council was whether to use City resources to pursue a quiet zone and engage the public in a process that could involve connectivity issues, closures and one-way conversions. Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Solomon for incorporating his suggestions into her motion. He would support the motion to move to the next step, study the issue, obtain input from affected neighborhoods and return to the council. He said a question to be addressed before construction of any safety improvements was whether they would result in a quiet zone. Ms. Solomon remarked that a quiet zone would not reduce the decibel level, only the frequency of horns sounding. Ms. Taylor asked what would be accomplished by further study prior to a public process. Mr. Larson said that further study would clarify what resources were available to the City and examine the possible modification of connectivity and one-way street standards. Ms. Solomon requested that the study also measure the impact on local businesses against the money to be spent. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Piercy asked for a summary of the steps involved in the process and the decisions to be made at each step. City Manager Taylor said he would research with Oregon’s congressional delegation how other communities had accessed federal resources for similar projects. The motion passed unaimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 9 Work Session