Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/15/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon November 15, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from the Council, Mayor, and City Manager Ms. Bettman asked for a memorandum on the issue of when the Eugene Police Department would begin to enforce the special response fee, including a description of the provisions the police have to get students home. Ms. Bettman referred to a memorandum regarding a solid waste and recycling rate adjustment, distributed to councilors. She suggested the rate adjustment be postponed until after the council's November 27 work session on the topic. City Manager Jim Johnson noted the adjustment was not planned to go into effect into after the council met, adding it would be helpful if councilors with questions about the topic provided them to staff. Mr. Kelly noted his item was also related to the memorandum on the solid waste and recycling rate adjustment. He questioned whether the rate adjustment should be delayed until completion of the system redesign. Mr. Kelly did not think the memorandum was clear regarding the relationship between the percentage increase in the haulers' current and projected expenses and the percentage rate adjustment. Further, the adjustment reflected the expectation of changes in the curbside yard debris program; Mr. Kelly suggested that the City was both acting prematurely and circumventing the council's intent in capping the curbside rates. City Manager Jim Johnson suggested that the council first have a work session on the system redesign, followed by a work session on the rate adjustment. Ms. Taylor was also concerned about the solid waste memorandum. She asked about how much profit the haulers were making and asked how that compared to the profits realized by haulers in other communities. She thought Eugene's rates were already among the highest in the state and would be the highest if the adjustment were adopted. Mr. Torrey indicated that Mr. Pap~ had recused himself from the discussion during the items related to solid waste and recycling. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap~ reported that the Police Commission would meet with the council in several weeks and members looked forward to the council's review of its new work plan. He said that the commission had formed a Use of Force Subcommittee that was working on the City's use of force continuum. The subcommittee, chaired by Floyd Prozanski, was meeting twice a month and would report back to the full commission in April 2001. Mr. Pap~ anticipated that any recommendations that resulted from the process would be forwarded to the council by the commission sometime in May 2001. Ms. Nathanson passed. Mr. Meisner reported that members of the two citizens committees formed as a part of the council's adoption of a resolution calling for a River Road/Santa Clara planning process had been appointed. He indicated he would provide the council with the names of the members. Mr. Meisner noted the cancellation of an interview with a candidate for the Budget Committee later in the evening and said the other candidate, Michael Caprai, had been appointed to the Santa Clara committee. Given that, he suggested the council may want to reopen the Budget Committee appointment process. Mr. Meisner anticipated a construction kick-off would be occur for the new library, possibly during the upcoming council holiday recess. Mr. Rayor recollected that the council had discussed a drug treatment component in conjunction with the passage of the prostitution-free zone ordinance. Since then, Ballot Measure 3 had passed, which had an impact on the current funding level for treatment, and Lane County received a three-year, $500,000 grant for drug addiction treatment. He requested information on what those events meant in terms of the City's contributions to the Intergovernmental Human Services Fund for those services. Mr. Rayor did not think anyone had a good grasp of all the separate pieces of the existing system. He noted that $30,000 of the grant dollars received by Lane County were intended to address the type of treatment the City needed to support its ordinance. He had intended to request that staff develop a motion that directed $20,000 of the City's contribution to supplement the grant funding but was now not sure it was necessary. Mr. Rayor said he needed more information. Mr. Johnson suggested that the council have a discussion the practice of designating how Intergovernmental Human Services dollars were spent, pointing out the practice lessened the intergovernmental nature of the program. Mr. Rayor said that many of his concerns had to do with accountability. Mr. Torrey encouraged staff to find out what it could about Ballot Measure 7 as soon as possible. He said that he needed to know how to respond to constituents with questions. He urged caution in how the City moved forward. Mr. Torrey referred to council committee assignments and said he would send out a draft recommendation to all councilors for their review and to make adjustments to committees. He particularly noted the lack of interest in the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 2 Work Session B.Work Session: The Downtown/VVillamette River/Franklin Boulevard Visioning Project Ms. Nathanson provided background on the item. She noted the formation of the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning, which included Ms. Nathanson as chair and Mr. Meisner and Mr. Rayor as members. She said that the final report was prepared by that committee. She suggested that the council accept the report and then determine what to do with it. Ms. Nathanson recommended that the council direct the City Manager to develop a Phase 2 of the process, with focus areas and key next steps added by the council. Ms. Nathanson reviewed the process used by the committee to develop the report. She highlighted and explained some of the recommendations in the report. Ms. Nathanson said she thought that the report was exciting and she hoped the council would accept it and move into the next phase. Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer continued the presentation, first placing the study in the context of other ongoing studies and planning efforts and highlighting key next steps prioritized by the committee. He described the public input activities and noted the Web site established for the process. Ms. Taylor said the booklet produced in conjunction with the effort was beautiful, interesting, and well put together. She said she had attended the public input sessions and the attendance at those meetings indicated a high level of community interest in what happened downtown. She thought that the City should hold another community-wide, all-day meeting, so that all those who were interested could attend and look at the report's priorities. Ms. Taylor thought zoning for downtown was a high priority and was glad the committee addressed the topic. Her definition of downtown did not include Franklin Boulevard or the river. She thought the parts of the core that were degraded should be priorities. She liked the concept of protecting the edges of downtown but wanted to fill in downtown before expanding activities outside the core. Ms. Taylor did not want the entire downtown to become office space only. She did not think office space contributed to an active downtown at night and suggested that less office space should be planned for because of that fact. Ms. Taylor liked the report's mentions of pedestrian access and of retaining the Farmers Market. She emphasized the importance of taking action on the Farmers Market soon. Mr. Meisner emphasized that the report was a vision, not a plan. He had not liked the consultants used in the process, saying at times the committee made progress in spite of them, but he thought the staff work was tremendous. Mr. Meisner was unsure that acceptance of the report implied acceptance of the priority key steps recommended by the committee; he was not sure the council should direct staff to scope each priority. Mr. Meisner thought a new zoning district was important but said design review was more vital. The whole downtown could be in a single zone and it could still result in the construction of terrible structures. Mr. Meisner liked the general concept of returning to the river and giving citizens a sense that the river was near downtown. He observed that the river followed Franklin Boulevard for a long distance but one traveling along the road would never know that fact, which led to some of the committee's recommendations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner expressed frustration that the committee did not address the north downtown area, ignoring the srd/4th connector, leaving open the possibility of undesired development buffering the downtown area and blocking the view of Skinner Butte. Referring to a letter the council received from Sandra Bishop and Dorothy Anderson of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), distributed to councilors prior to the meeting, Mr. Meisner said that the committee had an extensive discussion of the need for partnership and the concept that EWEB's master plan should consider factors beyond cost. He expressed disappointment about the letter's statement that no facilities would be moved because of the cost. Mr. Meisner said he felt betrayed and was angry at the letter. Mr. Rayor said he had liked the consultants. Mr. Rayor distributed some changes he was suggesting to the report focusing on access to downtown and capturing some elements that he did not think were now in the report. Mr. Rayor said that he had not shared many of the key issues identified by members. He did not think the vote on the committee represented anything outside the views of the downtown stakeholders, special interests, and elected officials, and questioned how the remainder of the community would consider that fact. He believed many of the committee's recommendations were less a framework for the future than implementation steps. Mr. Kelly thought some of the work done by the committee was great. He thought it appropriate to accept the report, but acceptance did not mean the council endorsed any particular recommendation in the report. Mr. Kelly said there needed to be a step inserted between "accept report" and "come up with work plans on key next steps." He suggested the council have a work session or, ideally, extended workshop dedicated to review of the report so the council could discuss and reach concurrence on its elements. At the inception of Phase 2, the council could add some steps, test those with the public, followed by development of a detailed work plan. Mr. Kelly did not want to print the report in final form unless the council's direction was captured in the introduction to make clear the context in which it was accepted. Mr. Pap~ thanked the committee and the councilors who participated on it. He said he appreciated the first priority on the list related to opening the streets. He also liked Mr. Rayor's suggested changes. Mr. Pap~ noted the use of University of Oregon Architecture students during the process and encouraged the continued involvement of the University's School of Architecture. Ms. Bettman also thanked the councilors who participated in the ad hoc committee. She concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the process after this point. She thought the document had a lot of good ideas and some ideas she did not think were so good. Ms. Bettman also thought there were a lot of ideas not in the document and hoped it had more exposure in the community so such ideas were added. She was willing to accept the report as it reflected the priorities of the committee, but she did not want its recommendations to be binding on the council, or the council's acceptance of the report to be interpreted as tacit endorsement of the recommendations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 4 Work Session In terms of omissions, Ms. Bettman said that the report did not address the reopening of Willamette Street for the purpose of creating a north-south connector on the city's most historic major street. She was also concerned about the lack of specificity in the report about where downtown was, and thought the boundaries should be delineated more specifically. Ms. Nathanson believed that the committee achieved what it was intended to. The vision it put forth was future-oriented. The report provided an opportunity to improve both the river and fish habitat. She was excited about mixed-use development and the possibility of making Franklin Boulevard more attractive. In addition to exciting long-term projects, the report was practical and included projects that could be done quickly to great effect. Ms. Nathanson cited two-way streets, experimenting with diagonal parking, and zoning as things achievable in the short-term. Ms. Nathanson indicated her concurrence with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the council's acceptance of the document as the committee's work. She suggested the possibility that there could be a subsequent council-adopted report that addressed the issues mentioned by the council and that included the council's key priorities. She reminded the council that it would give staff more direction on how to move forward on December 13. Mayor Torrey said that he hoped the council would adopt the report. Mayor Torrey was very interested in the committee's recommendations related to the reopening of Broadway Street, saying he thought it was good idea whether Symantec stayed downtown or not. Ms. Taylor pointed out that downtown already had easy pedestrian access to the river from 4th Avenue and perhaps it should be better signed. She thought that something needed to be done about 6th and 7th avenues in terms of pedestrian access. Ms. Taylor said that the streets were a barrier to access. Ms. Taylor liked the recommendations for two-way streets. Ms. Taylor was very interested in protecting the river and hoped access did not mean roads. She was also not interested in more buildings along the river. Mr. Rayor suggested adding his recommendations to the committee report as an appendix. Mr. Kelly suggested that instead, the council follow Ms. Nathanson's recommendation and enlarge the report upon the completion of its work. Mr. Rayor agreed. Mr. Rayor said he would like to add an introduction to the key priorities list that indicated it was based on a vote of the committee. Mr. Meisner noted that committee had discussed prefacing the list with an explanation about how priorities were reached. Mr. Farmer said that staff could add some text reflecting those comments. Mr. Kelly said that he would like to see some vision for what he termed the "small stuff" of economic development. He cited reuse of vacant store fronts over the short-term. He agreed with Ms. Bettman about the need to define the boundaries of downtown. Mr. Kelly said he was not interested in opening West Broadway for the sake of merely opening the street. He was interested in seeing it open in conjunction with some sort of larger project, such as a commercial anchor development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly indicated he would e-mail further thoughts to staff for discussion at the next work session. Mr. Pap8 referred to the federal courthouse and emphasized that its location in Eugene was not a "done deal." He said that the courthouse could still be located in Springfield. He said that the council should do what it could to encourage the General Services Administration to accept the Chiquita site. Mr. Pap8 shared Mr. Meisner's dismay at the letter from EWEB as it did not reflect his past understanding of the issues involved. Ms. Bettman said that the City could pursue the cost-neutral strategies in the report and move forward with them. She cited two-way streets as an example. Ms. Bettman said that the report did not address a concern of hers, the external considerations for downtown, or how policies citywide affect downtown. She said that some of the existing conditions downtown were a result of policy decisions made in the past, and she thought those things the City could control, such as parking, should be reexamined. In response to Ms. Bettman, Mr. Meisner noted that some committee members discussed the issue she raised. He said he had made the committee aware of other processes through which the City would address some of those factors involved, and the committee did not choose to address it in the plan. Also responding to Ms. Bettman, Ms. Nathanson thought the committee believed much of what Ms. Bettman was concerned was more appropriately addressed in Phase 2 as implementation strategies. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to thank the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning for its excellent work and recommendations included in the report, A Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene; and to direct the City Manager to use the next appropriate council work session for continued discussion of the report and to present an outline of process for council and public involvement prior to council consideration of key next steps for Phase 2, to begin implementation of the vision for downtown. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 6 Work Session C.Work Session: Legislative Priorities for the 2001 Oregon Legislative Session Mr. Johnson introduced the item, saying that it was an opportunity for the council to discuss its legislative priorities and issues for the State and federal legislative agenda with members of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Sara Hamlen of the City Manager's Office noted that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations had met twice in the last two weeks to review the council's legislative policies, and would meet again on November 20 and November 29. She anticipated that the council would be asked to approve the legislative policies on Monday, December 11. Ms. Nathanson, chair of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, briefly discussed the purpose and different audiences for the City's legislative policies document. Ms. Nathanson said that the committee needed to know about the council's level of support for lobbying for some of the issues raised by individual councilors since the last session, and was soliciting suggestions for other issues. Ms. Hamlen distributed copies of a straw poll listing issues raised in the past, stressing that the list of issues was not complete. Mr. Kelly said that the State's restriction on the City's ability to assess quantity-based fees for its toxics right-to-know program was an important issue to him. He was also interested in tax restructuring on a statewide level to help to stabilize municipalities' general funds. Mr. Kelly suggested that the legislation be asked to allow school districts to assess a systems development charge to new development for schools. Mr. Kelly recollected the passage of recent state laws that made the drafting of the City Land Use Code Update more challenging, specifically the legislation related to needed housing and the legislation requiring all refinement plans to be directly included in the Land Use Code. He asked if there was anything the council could do to revise those laws during the upcoming session. Mr. Kelly thanked the committee members for their hard work. Mayor Torrey recommended that the council focus on a few key priorities to ensure it had the greatest impact. Mr. Meisner also thanked the committee. He said that the list distributed by Ms. Hamlen was very helpful. Mr. Meisner said that the topics of local government financing and local finance options were very important to him, particularly after the State had acted to preempt the City's video tax. Mr. Meisner suggested the City consider advocating for a statewide ban on smoking in businesses. Mr. Meisner appreciated the priority given by the City to rail. He hoped the City would advocate for more funding than was currently allocated. Mr. Meisner said that if the City Council decided to defer to the State on any issue with a relationship to home rule, it needed to explain that in the document, and justify the departure from policy. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she would like to see transportation funding flexibility for alternate modes and land use strategies. She agreed with Mr. Meisner about a statewide smoking ban. In addition, she favored expanding the scope of the systems development charge to include public safety services, schools, libraries, and parks. Ms. Bettman objected to State laws constraining the use of systems development charges to the right-of-way and said the revenues should be available to underwrite the costs of alternate transportation strategies, like access management, sidewalks, and nodal development, which increase capacity without adding lanes. Ms. Taylor said local options for revenue were important to her and she concurred with other councilors about the importance of rail funding. She also concurred with Mr. Kelly regarding the use of systems development charges for schools. Ms. Taylor supported State funding for downtown shuttles and trolley links to trains. She said the City should be able to use State funds for something besides building new roads. She agreed about a statewide smoking ban and said that the State should also be involved in providing funding for homeless shelters and youth centers. Ms. Taylor wanted to see the possibility of inclusionary zoning restored by State, and said she would like to see the State requirement for a 20-year land supply abolished. Mr. Pap8 said the mayor's comments about focusing on a few priorities were well-taken. His top priority was rail. He thought it would be difficult to sustain at current funding levels and urged the building of valley coalitions to maintain rail funding. He wanted also wanted legislative help in addressing the ramifications of the passage of Ballot Measure 7. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson about the process from this point, Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the size of the policies document and the number of policies it addressed. He acknowledged that some of the suggested additions were already covered by existing policies, but said that it was important for the City to be easily able to highlight what it thought was important to the legislative delegation. The council agreed with a suggestion from Mr. Pap8 that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations would review the additions to the policies document suggested by councilors, and report back to the council about how the additions were addressed. Mayor Torrey said that the council would need to give staff direction at some point about how to deal with the issue of PERS. Mayor Torrey reported that the League of Oregon Cities was proposing a demonstration project for after-school programs to the legislature. Although the City may not be able to immediately take advantage of the funding that resulted, he believed it should support the project. The League of Oregon Cities had also passed a resolution calling for reading readiness using the University of Oregon's assessment of kindergardeners and first graders and ensuring that teachers had access to scientifically based methods of teaching reading. He hoped the City would endorse the resolution. Regarding the size of the policies document, Mr. Kelly said that perhaps the City should have two different documents with greater and lesser degrees of detail. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly thanked the mayor for raising the scientifically based reading issue. He said it was surprising to him that while there were proven methods with proven track records, it was so difficult to get them into curriculum. Mayor Torrey also noted his interest in getting the State to allow the City to levy an admittance tax on University of Oregon entertainment events. Ms. Nathanson said that Ms. Bettman's comments regarding the use of the systems development charges mirrored some comments she previously made about the use of the charge for capacity improvements and the fact that there were improvements that were made for safety that also added to capacity. She hoped to expand the State definition of increased capacity. Ms. Nathanson reviewed the council's list of suggested additions and added State revenue sharing for road funds. Regarding the latter addition, Mr. Johnson cautioned the council about how it approached that issue as it the funding formula for roads and schools had been complicated by the timber receipts legislation and equalization process. Ms. Hamlen noted the potential that legislation could be proposed that established a natural disaster relief fund, to be partially funded by the gas tax. That could impact the total amount of available transportation dollars. Ms. Nathanson did not think she was interested in adding text to the document about funding for homeless shelters unless another Lane County city showed interest in partnering in such a shelter. She was also not interested in restoration of inclusionary zoning because the evidence did not indicate it was an effective tool. In regard to Ms. Nathanson remarks about homeless shelters, Mr. Meisner believed there was a danger in asking the State to address the issue given its previous response to a similar request was to impose further requirements on home rule cities. Ms. Bettman recollected that there was proposed federal legislation for open space acquisition and said the City should lobby for that funding. Mayor Torrey observed that there was some funding, but not as much as was hoped for. Ms. Taylor wanted the State legislature to eliminate economic development grants. Mayor Torrey recommended the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations discuss the scope of the topic and make a recommendation. Ms. Taylor said that inclusionary zoning had been useful in New Mexico and some parts of California. She did not think there was evidence it had not worked. Mr. Rayor also was concerned about the needed housing legislation, and did not want the requirement for a 20-year land supply to apply to industrial and commercial lands. Mr. Johnson suggested to the council that City advocacy of a statewide smoking ban conflicted with the council's philosophy on home rule. Mayor Torrey believed that the Oregon Restaurant Association would work on legislation to ban smoking in restaurants and prevent smoking bans in bars. He asked if the legislature could change or preempt Eugene's ordinance. Mr. Lidz said yes. He believed the legislature could weaken or eliminate the City's ordinance. Mayor Torrey MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 9 Work Session recommended the council keep that in mind as it considered the issue of advocacy for a statewide smoking ban. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2000 Page 10 Work Session