Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/21/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 21, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, 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. A. Work Session: Proposed Revisions to the Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology Acting City Engineer Fred McVey joined the council for the item. He provided a presentation on the Public Rates Advisory Committee's recommendations for revisions to the transportation systems development charge (SDC). Mr. McVey noted that Oregon Statutes allow local jurisdictions some flexibility in the methodological approach they take toward rate calculation to account for local differences. The RAC recommendations, summarized in the meeting packet, included: Use of a level of service (LOS) approach versus a project-based (CIP and Transplan-based) approach as basis for developing SDCs. An update to the current LOS approach is recommended. · Modification of the current methodology to allow for recognition of use of existing system capacity by new development. An SDC which includes a combination of a reimbursement fee and improvement fee (60 percent improvement fee/40 percent reimbursement fee) is recommended. · Use of updated rate assumptions and related cost factors in determining reimbursement and improvement fee rates, including: use of replacement cost new in determining unit costs; LOS definition of capacity of 675 vehicles per lane per hour; and use of a systemwide average trip length of 1.78 miles. · Refinements to administrative elements of the methodology including to calculation of SDCs for individual developments, including pass-by trip adjustments-alternate trip rate assignments for "exceptional users," and adjustments for approved nodal developments. · Recommendation to implement methods to evaluate and improve methodology assumptions to ensure revenue sufficiency and equity of rates. Examples include completing an updated and improved local transportation behavior survey and utilizing local trip generation studies where feasible. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Mr. McVey acknowledged the diversity of opinion on the committee regarding the recommendations and indicated there were areas where there was not full consensus, but majority support for the recommendations. Specific differences were noted in Attachment A, Transportation SDC Methodology, Summary & Discussion of RAC Recommendations. Mr. McVey noted the RAC's recommendation for a reimbursement fee, which recognized that a portion of the capacity needs of new development were met by the existing transportation system. Mr. McVey indicated that adoption of the recommendations would result in a 50 percent increase in the transportation SDC; the result would be that the City of Eugene's rates fell in the mid-range of those charged by other Oregon communities; Eugene would be in the lower one-third of those cities in rates for most development types. Staff anticipated that the rate increase would increase SDC revenues by about $700,000, raising the total in SDC revenues to $2 million total. Of the total transportation increase, a portion would be in the form of reimbursement fee revenues, and staff proposed that 40 percent of SDC be reimbursement, so about $800,000 would be available. He said that there was more flexibility in how those dollars could be spent; for example, they could be used to fund any capital project in the system for which the fee was collected, including rehabilitation and replacement projects. Referring to the revenue projections, Mr. McVey emphasized that revenues collected depended on the level of development activity in the community. He also emphasized that the total revenues projected to be collected did not come close to the meeting all transportation system needs. Mr. McVey reviewed the time frame for implementation, terming it expeditious. He said that staff had already provided legal notice of the City's intent to modify the charge, and awaited council approval to complete the process. Mr. McVey invited questions. Ms. Taylor asked if the notification provided by staff would cover a higher fee if the council chose to take that direction. Mr. McVey said yes, as the notice was not specific to any particular rate or methodology. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner about the membership of the RAC, Mr. McVey said that members were as follows: Doug Weber from the Lane County Homebuilders Association, Micheal Roberts of the Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Bettman, originally representing the Citizens for Public Accountability, Merle Bottge from the League of Women Voters, John Prior from the Neighborhood Pool, Paul Nicholson from the Friends of Eugene, David Hinkley from Neighborhood Leaders Council, and technical representative Chris Clemow. He noted that the RAC lost a Voter Pool representative midway through the process, and that position was not refilled. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. McVey if the RAC had examined the factors in other cities' methodologies to determine why their rates were higher or lower than Eugene's. Mr. McVey said communities had differently configured transportation systems and different levels of growth and need for projects to respond to that growth, resulting in different methodologies and different rates. He confirmed that most other Oregon communities use a project-based approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly concurred as to the importance of monitoring and updating the SDC on a periodic basis. He also endorsed the proposal for a new trip behavior survey, and asked if that could be funded from SDCs. Mr. Kelly asked how staff handled inflation, and if there was an automatic inflator built into the Replacement Cost New approach. Mr. Kelly noted that the recommendation was to collect now at Replacement Cost New in today's money for an improvement that may not be built for 10 to 20 years; he asked how that was addressed in the calculation. Mr. McVey said the trip behavior survey would be largely funded through SDCs as it was part of the administrative backbone of the SDC. He confirmed that the survey was on the division's work program, and that staff would work with Lane Council of Governments staff on the new survey instrument. He noted that the RAC reached consensus on that particular recommendation. Mr. McVey reported that staff addressed inflation administratively; it was the City practice to use the Construction Cost Index as an inflationary index, and to apply it to the SDC rate on a periodic basis as a routine means of keeping pace with construction costs. He noted the complication created by what he termed "lumpy" transportation costs; the City could have large expenditures in one year and relatively lower expenditures in another year; the revenue stream was also "lumpy," dependent on development. Mr. McVey indicated that overall, the revenue stream was adequate to fund a portion of the projects identified, but there were a number of transportation project in the unfunded category in both the City's Capital Improvement Plan and TransPlan. He suggested there was a self-balancing mechanism in terms of the availability of funding and the need to do projects. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for its work on the transportation SDC, saying staff and the RAC worked very hard. From a general perspective, however, Ms. Bettman did not think that the RAC had realized the council's direction to realize full-cost recovery in the SDC. She believed that the RAC had started as a balanced committee but that through attrition it became weighted in favor of industry. Ms. Bettman said the council was far from full-cost recovery with the recommendation before it. She acknowledged the challenge in determining what was full-cost recovery, but maintained the answer was tied to the data available, and there was insufficient data, leading the RAC to rely on national or regional data. Ms. Bettman said that it was difficult to ascertain if the communities on which the data was based were collecting on a full-cost recovery basis. She believed that the City could have gotten closer to full-cost recovery by relying on staff and not using the RAC to review and screen the data further. Ms. Bettman questioned how long it would take to conduct another household survey. Mr. Rayor asked if changes in the LOS in the transportation system would lead to changes in the methodology and increase the SDC. Mr. McVey said a change in the LOS would potentially change the SDC. He added that the LOS approach assumed that growth would pay for a new system proportionate to the cost of existing capacity in the existing system to maintain the LOS adopted by the community. Mr. Rayor asked if, as growth occurred and the LOS dropped, the SDC would increase. Mr. McVey said that ensuring that the LOS did not fall was a component of the RAC's recommendation for monitoring the adequacy and equity of the rates. Mr. Rayor asked if there was anything in the methodology that would allow the rates to be adjusted as things changed. Mr. McVey responded that the primary variable in the rate would be the inflationary adjustment. In addition, staff had committed to the RAC for periodic review of the SDC in four years. Mr. Rayor MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 3 Work Session thought it made more sense to have a rate that included variables that could be adjusted as appropriate, so the rate increase would not be a stair-step increase. Mr. McVey clarified that if the travel behavior survey indicated significant changes to rate factors, such as the average trip length or trip generation rates for a particular development type, adjustments could be made to the methodology administratively to address those changes. Mr. Fart said the community would always have to deal with growth, and he thought the RAC- recommended changes were a level-handed way to deal the issue of transportation improvements. He complimented staff and the RAC on their work. However, Mr. Fart pointed out the result of the recommendations would be an increase in the cost of single-family housing, which had the effect of increasing the cost of rent across the board. He said that the council should only adopt such increases when absolutely essential. Ms. Nathanson noted the recent presentation of the Six-Year Financial Forecast to the Budget Committee and asked if the information regarding revenue projections was congruent with that presented to the committee. Mr. McVey said the information was not based on the six-year forecast; he had done a straight-line projection based on the experience of the last three years. Referring to the comparison with other cities, Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible other communities' projects costs differed because they had a higher proportion of streets to be upgraded to urban standards, such as in the high-growth areas outside Portland. Mr. McVey said that one of the difficulties of the RAC's work was the dynamic nature of transportation systems and differences in jurisdictional ownership of the streets. For example, were State highways serving as major community arterials, or were the streets local streets that had evolved from county roads to urban arterials or collectors? He believed it was fair to say that the communities with the highest rates faced the situation mentioned by Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson asked if SDC funds could be spent on a street such as Elmira Road that was not built to urban standards, suggesting that improved intersections, striping, and the addition of turn lanes in certain places could facilitate safer movements and be considered a capacity-enhancing project. Mr. McVey said that SDC funds could be used on such a project. Even prior to adoption of an reimbursement fee, some portions of the nonassessible improvements on a collector street such as Elmira Road were SDC-eligible. Ms. Bettman believed that there was more to the issue of capacity than just the width or length of a road, and contended that access to the road also affected capacity. She said the issue was relevant to the RAC's discussion of pass-by trips; while such trips were discounted because they were pass by trips, she had argued that each such trip added to the congestion of the roadway and decreased the roadway capacity; the RAC did not have the data to support the argument so it did not get anywhere with it. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding the adequacy of the revenue to be collected, Ms. Bettman said that when the RAC valued the system and determined what kind of development had what kind of claim on the system capacity, it had looked at those issues in a vacuum. There were no numbers to consider until the end of the process. She characterized the process as examining a lot of small details and the range of what the options were, and usually going with the pretty moderate option, and that led to the ultimate methodology. Regarding the cost of housing, Ms. Bettman said the cost of the infrastructure and services to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 4 Work Session serve a new house are pretty much constant. She said that the recommendation would not raise the cost of providing the infrastructure, but rather making the developer cover more of the costs. She said that those costs would either be picked up by the taxpayer or the developer. Ms. Bettman said that the biggest problem she had with the RAC recommendations was the lack of a geographic component in the transportation SDC. She noted the RAC recommendation for a ten percent SDC discount in the nodal development area. Ms. Bettman said the RAC lacked data to support the geographic component, and she wanted to continue to pursue the concept by having staff examine what other cities were doing in terms of that concept, or develop a few options for such a component. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to return to the City Council with a proposal for a geographic component for the transportation SDC. Mr. Kelly also thanked the RAC and staff. He shared Ms. Bettman's concern over the lack of a geographic component in the transportation SDC. He did not expect adoption of the motion to slow down implementation of the RAC recommendations. Mr. Kelly noted the exemption in the methodology for a change of use in downtown, and said he would like to see some proposals from staff that consider the recommendation in light of Growth Management Policy 14. He said there may be a geographic adjustment that recognized the increased cost of services at the periphery, but that could be offset across the entire community by lower SDCs for developments that support higher density, infill, mixed use, or redevelopment. The City may not be collecting more SDC revenues, but more from some types of development and less from other types. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion and called attention to the time. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend time for the item by three minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Pap8 not yet having arrived at the meeting). Ms. Nathanson said that development at the periphery was a problematic issue for her, whether the discussion was taxing parking spaces or levying higher SDCs on peripheral development. She pointed out that some peripheral development reduced trip lengths; she cited grocery stores and home improvement stores examples of development that might mean avoided vehicle miles traveled. Ms. Nathanson said that the approach suggested in the motion would require care to ensure how to provide the right incentives. Ms. Bettman thought Ms. Nathanson's concern was addressed by the ten percent exemption for nodal development. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Farr voting no (Mr. Pap8 not yet having arrived at the meeting). Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct staff to move forward with implementation of the revised transportation SDC methodology as proposed. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Pap8 not yet having arrived at the meeting). MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 5 Work Session B. Work Session: Social Services Dispersal Richie Weinman of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. He noted that the item had been a subject of council discussion before. He requested council direction on the concept of social services dispersal. Mr. Weinman said social services tended to cluster together because of issues of service delivery. He asked the council if the City should adopt proscriptive or advisory policies to encourage or require the dispersal of social services, and what the desired outcome was. Mr. Weinman suggested that it was difficult to define a "social service," and asked if it was a matter of the service being provided or the source of funding. Further, some services were client-intensive, while others served clients via the telephone. Some services had numerous locations, and they moved functions around dependent on current needs and funding. Some services were identified with particular neighborhoods because that was where their clients were. In other cases, it did not matter where the service was located. Mr. Weinman pointed out that State land use law identifies group homes as an outright us and they cannot be regulated in residential areas. He questioned whether a dispersal policy would apply to services funded by government or to services privately provided. Mr. Weinman noted a map of services provided with funding by the Human Services Commission, which indicated a fair amount of dispersal had already occurred among those agencies. He circulated the map among councilors. He clarified that the map did not show all social service providers. Ms. Taylor opened the floor to questions. Mr. Meisner noted his long-term interest in the topic of social services dispersal because many affected neighborhoods were in his ward. He was not prepared to answer the question of whether the City should adopt a proscriptive process at this time. He called for continued analysis on the topic. Mr. Meisner said that continuing complaints he heard from constituents was that there was no process for them to offer input on the location of such a service, and that no one was listening to their concerns. He advocated for a process that allowed residents to express their concerns, and for policy development that came from that process. Mr. Weinman asked if a social services agency that received no public funds should be treated in the same manner as any other business. Mr. Meisner clarified he was interested in an examination of the impacts of such a use; he distinguished between the administrative offices of an agency, and a walk-in methadone clinic. He reiterated his interest in a process that allowed the neighbors and neighborhoods to be consulted. Ms. Bettman suggested that the ultimate solution would be proscriptive and regulatory in nature. She thought the City would have to consider zoning or conditional use approaches. She said that in many cases, such uses were less likely to locate where they were an allowed use and more likely to attempt to get an existing residence rezoned to office or clinic use, or locate in a mixed- use neighborhood where it was more easy to get approvals. She noted the City's work to preserve housing in the downtown area and to preserve neighborhood livability in the neighborhoods surrounding and supporting downtown. Part of making them liveable was to avoid the concentration of social services in the neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman wanted to see the City move forward with a process that took into account the input provided by neighbors and included a range of options for the council to consider. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that the issue of neighborhood impact was key to him. He did not think that was or should be any different from the siting of a private business. He suggested a conditional use approach may be the appropriate direction to take. He wanted a process that moved forward with ideas from staff and input from the providers. Mr. Kelly emphasized his desire that the providers succeed. He said that dispersal was not a comment on the performance of the providers, but represented a balancing act for the City. He added he was not interested in policies intended to keep social services out of any particular neighborhood, but in policies that precluded too much impact on any single neighborhood. Mr. Kelly wanted to know what do other communities do. Mr. Kelly suggested that with more work, staff could produce a more complete inventory of local social service providers. Mr. Weinman asked the council what it wanted inventoried, and how it defined a social service to be inventoried. Mr. Kelly defined a social service as "those things that are impactful." Mr. Weinman said he did not know how to define what was "impactful." He asked if a social service must be a nonprofit agency; did the definition include the hospital, or a school? Mr. Kelly believed that the process of identifying the services in question would be an iterative one, and suggested that staff work with the neighborhoods and providers on the inventory. Ms. Nathanson suggested that it was too soon to develop an inventory. She said what was lacking in the discussion was a clear statement of the problem that existed or the council's objectives. The council had not told staff what it wanted it to fix. She said that the council needed to make a clear statement regarding the problem. Ms. Nathanson asked if the problem was that neighborhoods were unhappy with the direct impacts or potential risks to residents and their children. She said that the council needed to be willing to say so out loud, as that would give staff direction on what should be inventoried. Was the problem client access to treatment and emergency assessment? She said that the issues may be solved by the same type of policy, or they could require mutually exclusive policies. Ms. Nathanson asked if one of the problems the potential for bad personal behavior on the part of a client that could require an emergency response; did that suggest that services should be located in an area of quick police response time? Ms. Nathanson was not ready to give direction to staff on solutions until she knew what problems the council was trying to solve. Mr. Farr concurred with Ms. Nathanson's statements. He acknowledged that Mr. Meisner had received calls about the issue from constituents in his ward, and he had received some, but he did not know the magnitude of the problem. He said that there were actual and perceived problems, and most of the problems he heard about were perceived, which would make Mr. Weinman's task more difficult. He called for more formal input from the community before the council gave staff more direction. He thought perhaps the policy should be advisory rather than proscriptive, but that was the only question on Mr. Weinman's list he could answer at this time. He did not think the neighborhood input received to this point was enough, and reiterated his request for a public hearing. Mr. Rayor agreed that defining the problem was the first step that needed to taken. He thought there was a problem but suggested that anything the council adopted should exempt existing uses, which would give the council time to address the new services that located in Eugene. He suggested that as a starting point, the inventory could be a paper search of the conditional uses in Eugene. He also suggested that staff investigate regulations governing distances between schools and social service uses. City Manager Jim Johnson said that staff was looking for direction on why the City would want to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 7 Work Session take that approach: Was it because of traffic? Because of the clients? Because of the neighborhood impact? Mr. Rayor said yes, particularly in the R-1 and R-2 zones. He thought that some kind of dispersal based on distances between uses was appropriate; the first use to locate would have a circle around it within which another use could not locate. He thought that would also go to Ms. Bettman's concerns about residential conversions. Ms. Taylor said that the council did not have enough time to discuss the ramifications of this topic. She thought that transportation was central to the services involved, and services to which clients need to go should be centrally located because that was how public transit worked. She said that it was already time-consuming and difficult to get to the center of town, and even more difficult to have to transfer to another bus to reach a service's location. Ms. Taylor thought that services should be in the very center of town and proximate to each other, because frequently a client who needed one type of service also needed another, and it would be helpful if they were all located downtown in nonresidential locations. She thought that centralized locations would also speak to Ms. Nathanson's question regarding police response time as response times would be good. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Fart that the council needed to hear from more than two neighborhood associations. She said that those neighborhoods currently feel more impacted by social services than other neighborhoods, but if the council began to disperse those services it would hear objections and concerns from other neighborhoods. Ms. Taylor thought that the nature of the service and the associated impact needed to be taken into consideration. She also questioned whether the City had authority to regulate the locations of social services, and suggested that agencies often made their decisions on the basis of rents. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Mr. Meisner said the council had heard from more than two neighborhoods, pointing out that it also received a communication on the issue from the Trainsong neighborhood. He said that rather than basing their location decisions on the market, agencies should make them on the basis of client needs, ease of transportation, and logical clustering. He said that market-based decisions could lead to inappropriate locations. Mr. Meisner called for a fair process that allowed the neighbors to be heard. In response to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Meisner said that while some complaints were neighborhood-based, others were agency-based. He cited an incident in which a methadone clinic wanted to locate on the west side and the mayor worked to find another location. The site he located was zoned appropriately, but the property owner would not rent to the clinic. He believed that suggested the City might need a proscriptive approach to make sure that such uses could be located in the community. He pointed out that the City had taken a proscriptive approach to the Eugene Mission in the Whiteaker Plan to address the concerns of both neighbors and mission staff. Mr. Meisner suggested involved the Planning Commission in the issue. Mr. Johnson noted the commission's already heavy work load. Mr. Kelly thought the discussion indicated council interest in an examination of the dimensions of the issue and better definitions of the impacts of concern. He did not think the council was asking for a solution at this time, but rather for a process that involved the providers as well as residents. Speaking to the question of how to define a social service, Mr. Kelly suggested that it related to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 8 Work Session the issue of degree of impact. He did not think any criteria should deny a residential treatment center from being located in a neighborhood, but it might be legitimate to limit the number of treatment beds in a certain area because of neighborhood impact. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Rayor that existing social services should be grandfathered if a dispersal policy was adopted. Mr. Kelly thought there were some services that lent themselves to clustering, and suggested that master planning for that clustering would be appropriate. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that transit was key to the provision of social services. Mr. Meisner asked if it was reasonable to contemplate asking the Planning Commission to work on the issue. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the commission's work program was already quite full, and suggested that staff ask the commission if it could accommodate the effort. He added that staff could also do some initial research in the shod-term and come back to the council, which could direct it toward the Planning Commission at that time. Ms. Nathanson suggested alternatively, the Human Rights Commission could be charged with the effort. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to investigate to what extent the City could influence the situation, noting the passage of federal legislation that would allow supersiting authority for church-based activities. She also wanted to hear more about any other limits to the City's authority. Ms. Bettman thought the Human Rights Commission's work plan was also very heavy at this time. She suggested that the Neighborhood Leaders Council also be involved in the process. She said that the conditional use permit approach only worked if it was significantly changed or folded into a different zoning context. She termed the conditional use permit process a "beauty contest" and said that if one had a good cause, it was difficult to argue the good cause did not belong in a particular location. She did not believe the conditional use permit process worked in this context. Ms. Bettman was particularly interested in how such uses affected downtown, saying she believed the City needed to reestablish home ownership downtown and make those neighborhoods liveable as a natural support system for downtown. Mr. Pap~ agreed that the Human Rights Commission had a full work plan. He said that the commission discussed how to fit in additional work plan items, and agreed that while there was energy on the part of the commission, the work plan precluded the addition of much more. If something needed to be done in the near term, he suggest the commission be left out of the process. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to develop and initiate a public process to involve neighborhood groups, residents, and providers in analyzing social service siting, impacts, and needs and return to the City Council with options and recommendations for a resolution. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Meisner indicated his motion did not exclude businesses. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 9 Work Session Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 10 Work Session