Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/10/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 10, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Fart. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. I.DRAFT STREAM CORRIDOR ACQUISITION STUDY Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided a presentation on the Open Stream Corridor Acquisition Program. Mr. Corey said that with the advent of heightened awareness of stormwater issues, the City adopted the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan in 1993. He noted that there was now a much broader scope of stormwater management than what had previously been in place, particularly with conventional flood control programs. Mr. Corey introduced Tim Bingham of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), who provided an update on stream corridor acquisitions. Mr. Bingham said that the concerns of the Mayor and the council during the previous work session dealing with stream corridor acquisition included the cost of the acquisition program and the reliance of that cost on the Stormwater user fee. He said that staff had gone through an evaluation process, as directed by the council, to examine various methods designed to reduce costs and reliance on the user fee. He noted that the results of that work were in the meeting packet and included examples of effects of the user fee increase in customer categories at $.50 and $.80 per month. Mr. Bingham said that staff had looked at four alternatives for reducing costs: 1. Removing sites that already had some degree of protection associated with them. Mr. Bingham said that these sites would be within the West Eugene Wetland Plan boundaries, established in 1995. He said that eliminating those sites would reduce the number of total acres proposed for acquisition by 17.5 but reduce costs by over $2 million. He noted that the reason for the high values of those lands was that they were zoned for industrial, commercial, and multiple- family use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 1 Work Session 2. Only acquire high priority sites (tier 1, 2, and 3). Mr. Bingham said the range in these options was as high as $6.1 million; only acquiring the tier 1- 3 sites brought the cost down to $.5 million, where the sites in the development review process would be pulled because of issues associated with the development review process. He noted that costs could be reduced substantially using these methods but added that some would have a high cost in terms of impact to the overall objectives of the study. 3. Modify the funding approach. Mr. Bingham said there would be three methods of modifying the funding: 1. Use of the storm fund balance could help start the acquisitions in the early years. He said that if all of the tier 1 and 2 sites were acquired at once there would be a need for other funds besides the user fee rate funds. He said staff was suggesting use of as much as $850,000 of that balance. 2. Potential use of outside funds, donations, grants, and incentives. Mr. Bingham cautioned that while there were opportunities to apply for grants and other funding but cautioned that these were not reliable approaches to funding the program. He estimated that 10 percent of the costs might be funded through outside sources. 3. Increase user fee rate increase. Mr. Bingham noted that the original staff recommendation was $.80 per month for a medium residential customer. He said that capping the rate increase at $.50 per month went back to the Stormwater Department Advisory Committee (DAC) and Stormwater Systems Development Charge DAC recommendations. Mr. Bingham said it was possible to combine these options to further reduce costs. As an example, he suggested reducing costs by capping the user fee, going after grants and donations, and rely on the Stormwater Fund balance. He commented that staff felt this would be the best mix in terms of maximizing objectives and reducing costs and reliance on the Stormwater user fee. 4. Look at geographic balance of acquisitions citywide. Mr. Bingham noted that both the City Council and the Stormwater DAC had commented on the locations of the proposed acquisitions being primarily in south Eugene. He acknowledged that there were a couple of corridors in north Eugene (the Gilham Creek Corridor and the East Santa Clara Waterway Corridor), but said that the scope of the study would have to be expanded to look at restoration of waterways in developed neighborhoods. He said that the original scope of the study was to protect the "higher priority" resource waterways. Mr. Bingham offered three options for the council to consider: 1. The original staff recommendation MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 2 Work Session He said that this would fully optimize the objectives, as laid out by staff, with the implementation of an $.80 per month rate increase. 2. A modified plan He said this would include a modification to sites acquired and reduced reliance on the Stormwater user fee. 3. Expand the scope of the study He said that this option would address the geographic balance of the study. Mr. Bingham said staff was recommending going with the original recommendation, or if that was unacceptable, going with Option l(b) as outlined in the meeting packet. Mr. Bingham distributed a graph showing figures for stormwater fees for various uses and zones. Ms. Taylor expressed her preference for the second option outlined by Mr. Bingham. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding whether full acquisition could be achieved if the fee was capped at $.50, stormwater funds were used, and grants were sought, Mr. Bingham said that full acquisition could be implemented, but it would be a longer acquisition schedule. Ms. Taylor stressed that she was not so much interested in cost reduction as in protection of waterways. She stressed the importance of reducing future environmental costs by doing preventive work. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the reduced acquisition plans would still include the waterways identified in her ward area as having existing or potential capacity problems, Mr. Bingham said they would. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether there were significant areas overlooked in the plan, Mr. Bingham said there had been a screening of the entire city limits and the urban growth boundary focusing on corridors that scored high on selected criteria. He said that what was found was listed in the recommendation. He acknowledged that there could be some isolated sites that did not present the same opportunities for acquisition due to existing development as what were recommended by staff. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the possibilities of restoring the areas not recommended for purchase by a voluntary program with citizens, Mr. Bingham said that there is an existing Stream Team volunteer program that may or may not address restoration sites. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its thorough work. He said he preferred Option l(a) as presented in the meeting packet, but would also support l(b) if that had the majority of council support. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how Eugene's fees compared with other jurisdictions along the I-5 Corridor, Fred McVey of Public Works Engineering noted that a formal comparison had not been done but estimated that Eugene's fees would be in the "mid to upper range." MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 3 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether the estimates on purchases were based on fee/title, Mr. Bingham said staff had examined conservation easements versus fee/title. He said conservation easements and fee/title had similar costs and staff could go either way depending on the City's management objective. Mr. Pap8 stressed the importance of looking at other methods than fee/title, opining that there could be more success with less cost. He also stressed the need to look at the issue from a regional perspective and purchasing stream corridors in rural areas. Mr. Bingham said staff was working with Lane County in the River Road/Santa Clara area, and as part of the metrowide Natural Resources Study and metrowide Parks and Open Space Study. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether City money could be used to acquire corridors in rural areas, City Manager Jim Johnson said there would have to be some public purpose shown to the City but acknowledged that it was possible. Mr. Pap8 expressed his preference for Option l(b) as presented in the meeting packet. Mr. Rayor expressed his favor for Option l(b). In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding how increases in user fees would be implemented, City Manager Johnson said that the council would give direction and then he would implement the increase administratively. Mr. Meisner said he was in favor of Option l(b) but raised concern over raising fees administratively with no opportunity for public hearings. Ms. Nathanson said she supported Option l(b). Ms. Bettman said she supported Option l(a) but said she would reluctantly support l(b). Mayor Torrey shared Mr. Meisner's concern over raising fees with no public hearing. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding whether the funds could be used to restore Delta Ponds, staff said that it was not necessarily a stream corridor but would research the possibility. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding whether there was some way to include public involvement if Option l(b) was approved, City Manager Johnson said there was no effective date chosen for the fee increase and said that a number of public information sessions could be scheduled. Mr. Meisner stressed the importance of public involvement in the process. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adopt Option l(b). MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor expressed her preference for Option l(a). She said that it was the responsible thing to do and was spending money to protect the future health of the community. She remarked that l(b) was the least that the council could do. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion by adding a three-year sunset. Mr. Rayor said that a sunset would ensure an accounting of how the program was working. Mr. Kelly noted that Option l(b) required seven years for acquiring the proposed sites. He said he would not support the amendment. He was in favor of accounting and expressed a hope that the City Manager would take heed of the council's desire to see an annual report on the program. Ms. Bettman did not support the amendment for Mr. Kelly's reasons. She remarked that it was counter- productive since the acquisitions would take much longer than three years to accomplish. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment. He said there had been substantial public questions about the use of stormwater funds and the sunset was a way to guarantee accountability and performance. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the sunset date would undermine staff's ability to plan and negotiate, Mr. Corey said the sunset clause that preceded the expiration of the program might hinder the plan. The amendment passed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The main motion passed, as amended, unanimously. II.WORK PLAN FOR REOPENING BROADWAY Mr. Corey said staff was requesting council approval of a work plan for reopening Broadway to vehicular traffic between Oak and Charnelton streets. He cited the success of the businesses in adjacent areas that had benefitted by reopening streets as well as the lack of success of businesses and vacant storefronts along the length of Broadway proposed for reopening. Mr. Corey said that, in April, the council had approved the Downtown Visioning Implementation Work Plan for the Redesign of Broadway that recommended a public vote on the reopening and approved limited funding for the development of design concepts. He noted that voters in the following election had approved the reopening and staff had been working with a local design professional and had received comments from the public. He said the next steps in the process were the establishment of an interdepartmental work team and proceeding with the public involvement process. He said the outreach that was proposed was outreach to the Citizen Involvement Committee, Downtown Eugene Incorporated, neighborhood groups, as well as public workshops. He said that final design and approval would be via the Eugene Planning Commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Corey said that staff was recommending that the development of design standards proceed concurrently with the project design and ultimately be adopted as part of the Great Street Design Parameters. He noted that the general description of the design parameters were included in the meeting packet as Attachment D. He said the schedule was summarized in Attachment B. Mr. Corey said that preliminary estimates of costs for the project were $2.6 million. He noted that there was a pending request to Lane County, through the Capital Partnership Program, for $1.6 million dollars. He said that the remaining balance would be covered by the $625,000 remaining balance in the City's Commercial Revitalization Loan Fund and $375,000 in contributions from downtown merchants. He acknowledged that there was some consternation among the downtown merchants about this amount and said the project would be designed to fit within funding constraints that occurred. He said the council would have the opportunity to approve the final funding package. Mr. Corey asked for action approving the proposed work plan, to appropriate the balance of the Revitalization Loan Fund, and to acknowledge that the adoption of standards for all of the great streets identified in the Greater Downtown Vision would be part of a new downtown zoning district. Ms. Bettman expressed a desire to see design standards in place before beginning the reopening work. She said that this would allow better leverage in getting the desired development for a successful downtown street. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether assessments and systems development charges had been ruled out as ways of funding the project, Mr. Corey said the formation of a local improvement district was an option but instead staff were showing a private sector contribution of $375,000 as an cash contribution in lieu of that process. City Manager Johnson added that systems development charges (SDCs) were limited to certain kinds of streets of which Broadway did not fit the definition. Dave Reinhard of Public Works Transportation commented that Broadway was classified as a local street and SDCs revenues were limited to expenditures on collector and arterial streets. Ms. Bettman questioned the classification of Broadway as a local street as inconsistent with nearby streets in the area. She suggested funding studies to include design standards with the $625,000 in the Commercial Revitalization Fund and looking to assessments and SDCs as a way of coming up with the remaining funding. City Manager Johnson said there was a timing issue. He noted that the reopening could not be completed in time for the 2002 Eugene Celebration if the project was delayed by waiting for design standards. Mr. Kelly said he could support the first recommended staff motion. He said that he could support a second look at SDCs but did not want to have assessments as an option. Mr. Kelly stressed that design standards were critical to the reopening. He suggested that Option B, as presented in the meeting packet, would allow design standards to be completed before beginning construction. He was against the idea of design standards being developed concurrently with the street design. He suggested bringing in a nationally recognized consultant to get some new design ideas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Rayor said he supported the first recommended motion. He expressed a desire to move ahead with street planning and follow it as soon as possible with land use decisions. Ms. Taylor commented that arbitrary deadlines were not important and said that design standards needed to be completed first. She stressed that it took time to develop a great street and added that there needed to be a high level of public involvement. She said she was in favor of using the Commercial Revitalization Fund for completing design work. She added her support for examining the possibilities of using SDCs. She went on to say that there should be some way of assessing the people who wanted the street to be opened. Mr. Pap~ expressed his pleasure that the process had begun. He expressed his desire to see the project done right but was in favor of keeping to staff's timeline. Ms. Nathanson commented that design of the street and surrounding buildings were two different processes. She stressed moving forward expeditiously with opening the street. Mr. Meisner was against making SDCs a primary focus. He commented that if the City tried to do assessments it would give up all hope of getting private contributions and expressed his doubt that assessments would bring in $375,000. Mr. Meisner said that the Broadway and Westside neighborhood associations would be outraged by the suggestion that Broadway was anything but a local street. He said that the City had guaranteed that there would be no through traffic feeding arterial and collector streets. Mayor Torrey stressed the importance of moving forward quickly to show the public that the City Council could get things done. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the proposed work plan for reopening Broadway from Oak Street to Charnelton, including the transfer of the Commercial Revitalization Loan Fund appropriation to the Broadway Street opening project, to direct the City Manager to include the appropriation transfer in the next supplemental budget, and to bring back a final street reopening cost estimate and financing plan for City Council approval. Ms. Bettman reiterated her desire to see SDCs examined as a potential funding source. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the reason the Eugene Planning Commission had final approval for the project, City Manager Johnson said that was per City Council direction. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the cost estimate be structured so that the project could be completed in phases if there was not enough funding to do all the desired work. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that there was some consternation on the part of downtown property owners to contribute $375,000 but commented that 14 percent of the overall costs was not excessive. He expressed a hope that the Chamber of Commerce could do some public outreach to a citywide fund raising base. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to create design standards for development of Broadway, ahead of the downtown plan, using Option b plus the use of an outside consultant funded from General Fund Contingency, the goal for completion being September 2002. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding how much money would be used from General Fund Contingency, City Manager Johnson cited an approximate figure of $25,000. Mr. Pap~ stressed the importance of integrating street design with building design standards to a certain extent to maintain character. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 8 Work Session