Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/17/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 17, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Taylor called the meeting to order. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to conduct a third interview session on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, to fill vacancies for the Human Rights Commission and Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly said he would not support the motion as there were adequate candidates to fill vacancies for those commissions. Ms. Taylor said she would not support the motion. Mr. Fart asked that the vote be postponed until all councilors were present for discussion and withdrew the motion with the concurrence of Mr. Meisner. Ms. Taylor requested that councilors submit their ballot selections for various committees as soon as possible. She also asked that councilors indicate if there was interest in reopening the interviews for the Budget Committee. A. Work Session: Final Recommendation from the Budget Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided the background on the agenda item. He said the major revenue sources comprising the Road Fund were the State gas tax distribution and Lane County Road Fund revenue sharing. Mr. Corey explained that the gas tax distribution to cities had not been increased since 1991; additionally, that Lane County, with the decrease in the federal timber receipts, had limited its ability to maintain the level of revenue sharing to cities. He said that it had been reported during the Budget Committee hearings that the fund would become insolvent in fiscal year (FY) 2003 without substantial new revenue sources to maintain an existing level of service. Mr. Corey stated that the outcome of that projection was that the FY02 capital budget included zero funding for transportation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction work. Mr. Corey stated that in 2000, the City Council directed the citizen members of the Budget Committee to complete a study of the finance and service issues around the Road Fund and to return with a recommendation subsequent to that review. He said that the committee, the Budget Citizens Subcommittee, had completed its work and submitted a report to the council at its July 11 work session. Mr. Corey explained that Public MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 1 Works had provided a report to the subcommittee stating that the backlog of work totaled $53 million, and if ignored, could grow to an amount in excess of $260 million over the next 10 years. He said that the subcommittee asked for a second opinion and a consultant was contracted to issue findings. Mr. Corey pointed out that the findings revealed (1) the current backlog of preservation work was estimated at closer to $67 million; (2) the pavement management system was on track; and (3) an annual budget of $8.5 million for street preservation and maintenance would cap the existing backlog and decrease it to $40 million in ten years. Mr. Corey stated that additionally, an independent review was conducted to report on the efficiencies and effectiveness of Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation (OM&P) services of the transportation system. He said that the findings of that report revealed that (1) the City had a heavier reliance on the State Highway Trust Fund than comparable cities; (2) some activities that were charged to Eugene's Road Fund were not included in other city's road funds; (3) the range of services provided were not always consistent among the cities surveyed; and (4) City maintenance operations were generally efficient in comparison to other cities. Mr. Corey said that the recommendations included a continuation of performance measurement efforts, the involvement of employees in further analysis of private contracting options, and the creation of additional funding for pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction to reduce future maintenance costs. Mr. Corey pointed out that the subcommittee had devoted over a year to this study and commended its efforts as well as those of staff. Craig Wanichek, vice chair of the subcommittee, thanked staff for its assistance in this study. Mr. Wanichek said that the two areas the subcommittee focused on - in deference to council policy and TransPlan priorities - were (1) implementation of a revenue source that the City could control; and (2) a revenue source adequate to stabilize and improve the condition of the roads over the next ten years. Mr. Wanichek noted that the recommendation was approved unanimously by the subcommittee which included a diverse group of citizens. He reiterated that the independent studies confirmed the projections made by staff which added credibility to the recommendation. Mr. Wanichek noted that the gas tax, at the two-cent level discussed by the subcommittee, could generate an estimated revenue stream of $1.5 million; the Transportation Utility Fee (TUF),as discussed by the subcommittee, could generate the remaining resources for the $9 million recommended annual funding. He said the next step in the process should be an educational campaign informing citizens of this issue. He concluded that the recommendation represented an investment, by the citizens, in the infrastructure of the City. Eleanor Mulder, chair of the subcommittee, stated that subcommittee members reviewed approximately 20 suggestions of alternate funding outlined by staff; however, many of those were not feasible without changes to policy and/or State law. She added that a property tax would exclude private non-profit concerns and government entities and that those utilizing the services should participate in the cost. With regard to the gas tax, Ms. Mulder said it was pivotal that the City of Springfield be included in a cooperative effort. She conceded that initially she did not believe the TUF was equitable but ultimately arrived at the conclusion that those without automobiles had a need for transportation services which were performed by others and therefore required adequate roads as well. Ms. Mulder spoke about those individuals who were in a low- income/low-spending bracket and would be required to pay the same fee; however, she pointed out that individuals coming into the City from out-of-town would be contributing, as well as those who were heavy consumers and paying additionally through the cost of goods. She concluded that although not perfect, the TUF was the preferable alternative. MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 2 In conclusion, Ms. Mulder urged that the council act on this issue expeditiously as there would be a need for a formidable educational process before action could be taken, during which time the backlog would continue to increase. Mr. Meisner thanked the subcommittee for its efforts in reviewing this issue. He concurred that a locally controlled source of revenue was pivotal to addressing the issue and hoped that a regional approach could be achieved. Mr. Meisner voiced concern around the equitability issue if a TUF was implemented, but said he could support this approach if it were based upon use, rather than a flat fee. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, City Manager Jim Johnson replied that on April 26, 2001, a letter was sent to the Lane County Board of Commissioners suggesting that it increase the amount of federal timber receipts that it shared with cities, noting that the urban transition process was permanent and that there had been significant changes over time. Additionally, it was noted in the letter that the level of service had increased and therefore the amount of dollars should increase; also that there had not been an inflation adjustment. Mr. Johnson explained that timber receipts were not related to population, miles driven, registered vehicles, or drivers' licenses. He said there were only two ways to increase road fund dollars distributed by the County; either by agreement among County officials or by the cities asking voters to require the County to increase funding. Mr. Meisner requested that the County's percentage of distribution of urban versus rural be provided to the council and the public. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner as to collaboration with the City of Springfield, Mr. Johnson said that discussions were ongoing with regard to road funding; however, he said there was not an active proposal in progress. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that if a new road was built at the same quality in the City as in the County, the City roads would deteriorate more quickly due to differences in volume and weight of traffic. With regard to the gas tax, she opined that a metropolitan approach would be the most reasonable and practical and questioned if the budget committees of both Eugene and Springfield could meet jointly to address the issue. Ms. Nathanson spoke to the education and outreach program and questioned who the stakeholder groups would include. In conclusion, Ms. Nathanson opined that cable television was not utilized to its potential and hoped that it could be considered to explain the issue to the public. Ms. Bettman voiced her appreciation to the subcommittee for its efforts in this study, and especially in its pursuit of independent studies to confirm the various components of the issue. She spoke about the gas tax and noted that as it was a flexible use of funding, that it trickled down from the State, through the County, to the City, and was not prioritized to protect the existing transportation system. Ms. Bettman pointed out that if the voters were asked to pay for the upkeep of the system, there would be no incentive for the County and State to change the manner in which they distributed this funding. She also opined that the TUF had inequities and Eugene residents were paying for infrastructure that served a larger area. She said she would support the suggested motion but would offer an amendment to the resolution to put the TUF measure on the ballot so the citizens could make an educated decision to either agree to fund the road maintenance or demand that the County and State prioritize their spending. Mr. Kelly voiced his appreciation to the subcommittee for its efforts in reviewing this issue and particularly its decision to obtain independent consultant opinions. He stressed that the roadways were deteriorating MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 3 throughout the metropolitan area and was pleased that representatives of the City of Springfield were present for this discussion. Mr. Kelly said that he would not support a TUF that did not distinguish between different types of residential use, and noted that staff had not provided an approach to address varying uses. He requested that possibilities such as a distinction between single- and multi-family use, number of vehicles registered at an address, square footage of a residence, and driving use be provided to the council. Mr. Kelly stressed the importance of the area's businesses contributing to this fee. In response to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Johnson reported that in initial discussions with the Springfield City Council, it did not reject the idea of a gas tax or TUF. Len Goodwin, Public Works Department/Springfield, reported that his department would address the Springfield City Council on November 13, with recommendations for alternative locally controlled revenue sources specific to transportation and that these recommendations would not be inconsistent with the discussions underway by the Eugene City Council. Mr. Fart pointed to the unanimous vote of the subcommittee on this issue and also stressed that the educational component would be integral to the process, and suggested the inclusion of cable television. In response to a question from Mr. Fart regarding the yield of a TUF, Mr. Corey replied that based upon preliminary projections, a TUF would realize approximately $3 - $4 per month per single-family residence. With regard to the protection of the infrastructure, Mr. Fart pointed out that if necessary repairs were not made, degradation would proceed rapidly. Mr. Rayor thanked the subcommittee and staff for an excellent presentation and said he was pleased with the consultants' reports. He asked that staff follow up on the deficiency items to the extent possible and report back to the council. Mr. Rayor said he preferred the TUF to the gas tax unless there was participation by the City of Springfield. In response to a question by Mr. Rayor regarding the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual as the basis for applying a TUF, Mr. Klein replied there were several trip-generation rates. Mr. Hill explained there were trip-generation rates for several residential types such as single family, mobile homes, duplexes, multi-family, and condos, and these rates did not account for size of homes or number of vehicles. Mr. Rayor said that a modified version of ITE should be considered to accommodate small homes. He referred to the article in The Register Guard which mentioned public involvement and opined that this media would be an excellent avenue to utilize during the education campaign. Mr. Rayor suggested that discussions on this issue should take place with other cities during the upcoming League of Cities conference. He also pointed out that the TUF was not unique to Eugene as other cities had selected this source of funding to address road needs. Mr. Pap~ thanked the subcommittee for its efforts in this project. He pointed out that the recommendation could be put before the voters and if they did not wish to proceed, the County and the State should be approached for other avenues of funding. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Hill replied that other cities had adopted the TUF administratively through an ordinance and such action had been widely accepted by constituents. Mr. Pap6 concluded that the educational program needed to proceed prior to any implementation. Ms. Taylor stated she was opposed to the TUF as it was not equitable. Additionally, she stated she could support a gas tax as it would include individuals from out-of-town and purchasers of gasoline. She concluded that putting pressure on the County and State was a good approach. MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 4 Ms. Nathanson pointed to the unincorporated areas which did not fall within the legal limits of the City, and that those residents enjoyed the benefit of a lower tax rate and the same access to amenities. She questioned if the City of Springfield would be willing to review a gas tax that would encompass a "service district" to collect the tax over the urbanized area. Ms. Nathanson noted that staff had not addressed the question of whether the gas tax was progressive, as it was based on fuel consumption. She also questioned that if a TUF was considered in conjunction with a gas tax, additional thought should be given to the relative proportion of each. Mr. Johnson pointed out that gas stations outside the City limits but within the urban growth boundary numbered ten in Eugene and eight in Springfield. Ms. Bettman stressed that roads should not be built if a deterioration of service in the existing transportation system was to be ignored. With regard to the ITE manual, she questioned if the methodology of rates (i.e. pass-by trip adjustments) would be consistent with those suggested by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (PWRAC). Mr. Klein stated that the PWRAC methodology would be taken into account. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Rayor that a graduated fee should be applied with regard to categories of residences and that she preferred a gas tax. She said that the more effective educational program was a campaign. With regard to the motion, Ms. Bettman stated that the source of revenue should be dedicated to OM&P and requested that such wording be included in the resolution so that the revenue could not be used for other projects in later years. Mr. Johnson explained there were three ways with which to commit the revenue to a specific purpose: (1) through resolution or ordinance; (2) gas tax and TUF approved by the voters with specific commitment included in the ballot explanation; or (3) charter amendment. Mr. Kelly stated that a combination of the TUF and the gas tax was the most attractive alternative as they each affected different users. He pointed out that the City of Portland adopted a TUF administratively, which resulted in a petition to refer the ordinance to voters and the response of the Portland City Council was to withdraw it. Mr. Kelly opined it may be worthwhile to ascertain why that council acted as it did. He concluded that he preferred the issue be put forth to the voters and additionally, that the best avenue for an educational program was through a campaign. In response to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Hill replied that eight Oregon cities had TUFs which were enacted by council action. In reference to the Portland case, Mr. Hill explained that its council could not post a ballot measure argument due to the referendum and therefore an educational program would be problematic. Mr. Farr stated he preferred that this issue be put before the voters, as a campaign was the most effective way to bring about education and involvement. Mr. Pap~ cautioned that an additional burden should not be put on the taxpayers by the City taking administrative action. He said that the issue should be put before the voters, and that he could not approve the suggested motion without the development of an educational campaign to begin immediately. Mr. Johnson said that staff had developed a three-page public relations plan if, in fact, the council wished to proceed with a campaign. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the City should approach the County with the fact that much of this problem was precipitated by policies it had implemented in the unincorporated areas of the City. Mr. Meisner said he would support an amendment that put the issue before the voters; however, he did not believe a campaign was the most effective form of comprehensive education for the public. He referred to the wording in the motion directed to the ITE manual as the basis for fee-setting, and said that the City was not looking for progressive or use-based fees; rather, all single family dwellings would pay the same amount. MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Johnson said it was his intent that that component would be a major policy choice by the council at a later time and that the ITE manual need not be used exclusively. Mr. Rayor said he leaned toward the administrative approach for a TUF and that a gas tax should be voted on countywide. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding other taxes, Mr. Johnson replied that other taxes could be used for street maintenance and that would be a policy choice for the council to discuss. Ms. Taylor suggested that equitable sources of revenue be researched, other than property taxes, to address this issue. She concluded she would not support the motion if the TUF was included. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct staff to develop and bring back for council approval a detailed plan, timeline, and major policy choices associated with implementation of the subcommittee transportation funding recommendation, including: B. A transportation funding package consisting of a combination of local motor vehicle fuel tax and transportation utility fee, collaborating with the City of Springfield on the motor vehicle fuel tax, for the purpose of generating an additional $9 million (FY02 dollars) each year to address the City's transportation operations, maintenance, and preservation funding need, and; C. The use of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual as one basis for the transportation utility fee with adjustments for different residential characteristics. Ms. Nathanson requested further information on how the money would be used and questioned if it would be possible to make progress in the sidewalk completion program through this fund, including street lights. She requested that project lists, maps, and illustrations be provided to the council and hence to the voters so that it would be clear where the funding would be used. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that there were some transportation-related improvements that may not be OM&P but also not related to an increase in capacity. He explained that the motion drafted by Mr. Kelly provided flexibility and that the council would have ample time to fine-tune language. Mr. Fart stated he could support the motion and concurred that an educational program was integral and that it would be important to provide videos and illustrations for the public. Mr. Pap8 proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Mr. Fart, to immediately embark upon an educational program to educate the public on the operations, maintenance and preservation issues related to the City's transportation system, including streets, roads, bike paths, and pedestrian ways not to exceed $20,000.00. The amendment passed unanimously. Mr. Rayor proposed a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. PapS, that the main motion include a collaboration with Lane County on the motor vehicle fuel tax. Mr. Rayor pointed out that the only gas taxes attempted in the State had been County gas taxes, not City gas taxes. He suggested that, given that the gas tax seemed to be problematic, the MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 6 County could be consulted in as to the process. Mr. Johnson recommended that the amendment be withdrawn, as a separate motion to address this component would be put forth by Ms. Bettman. Mr. Rayor, with concurrence with Mr. Pap~, withdrew the amendment to the motion. Ms. Bettman moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to direct the City Manager to prepare a resolution, for review and approval by the City Council, stipulating that the motion's funding mechanisms would be put forth to the voters via a ballot measure. Mr. Kelly questioned the concept of a resolution as there needed to be an educational component prior to the campaign. Mr. Johnson cautioned that if a resolution was approved, a restriction would be imposed as to what could or could not be brought forth to the voters with regard to education. Therefore, he recommended that a resolution not be passed until after the educational program was completed. Mr. Meisner stated he would not support the amendment at this time as it was premature. He explained that the motion before the council was to direct staff to develop a plan, timeline, and policy choices. Mr. Meisner stressed that he was not prepared to vote on a particular plan at this time. Mr. Rayor concurred. Ms. Bettman said she was unwilling to do additional research and give permanence and momentum to a TUF without being assured it would ultimately be put forth to the voters. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Johnson confirmed that putting forth the recommendation to the voters, by ballot, could be a policy choice. The amendment failed, 6:2; Councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in support. Ms. Nathanson asked if the wording change in Part A of the motion from "transportation system" to "transportation OM&P" funding need would preclude the City Manager from bringing back suggestions for council consideration for funding needs related to sidewalk completion, street lights, improvements facilitating nodal development, and traffic calming. Mr. Johnson confirmed that he would take a broad view of OM&P as the operation of the entire street system and that staff would be bringing back options such as those mentioned. Mr. Pap~ stated he was hopeful that through an educational program, other options could arise. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct that the Mayor and Council President, joined by the Mayor and Council President from the City of Springfield, request a meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to discuss the distribution of County road funds to cities within the County and use of a gas tax and transportation utility fees within the metro area. The motion passed unanimously. B. Other Business MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to extend the interview process for the Human Rights Commission until Tuesday, October 23,2001. Mr. Fart explained that a possible candidate to serve on this commission was out of town during the regular interviews and had requested that the process be extended. He continued that this individual had major influence on the Bethel diversity efforts within the Bethel School District, was very committed to youth, and that he would like to honor the request. Mr. Papd moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to include Barbara Newman in the interview process for the Human Rights Commission, as she would be the only candidate to be considered from his ward. Mr. Papd explained that Ms. Newman had contacted him several times to express interest in serving on the Human Rights Commission and had received two votes thus far. Mr. Kelly reminded the council that three votes was the required criteria to be included in the interview process. The amendment failed on a 4:4 tie, with Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition, and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. Papd voting in support. The motion passed, 5:3, with Councilors Bettman, Kelly, and Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m. (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 8