Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/24/07 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 24, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark. Ms. Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She acknowledged Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy was participating telephonically from the United States Conference of Mayors in Washington DC. A. WORK SESSION: Ordinance to Create Sustainability Commission City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Council, Public and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston to discuss implementation of one of the primary recommendations from the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI): creation of a Sustainability Commission as an advisory committee to the City Council. Ms. Walston gave an overview of the SBI, which began in the spring of 2005 and culminated with a report approved by the council in October 2006. She said the report contained 11 recommendations for the City, including a public commitment to sustainability, creation of a sustainability manager position within the organization and formation of a sustainability commission. She noted that the council had made a public commitment by resolution and the City was in the final process of classifying and posting the sustainability manager position, with hiring anticipated in March 2007. She said implementation of the third recommen- dation for a commission was reflected in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Walston said that much of the language in the proposed ordinance was based on the ordinance that created the Police Commission. She noted that the draft reflected the council’s discussion of a 12-member commission with one citizen appointed by each councilor and four citizens appointed by the full council. She said staff recommended a smaller body composed of seven or nine members similar to the Civilian Review Board, with the mayor nominating and the council appointing members. She said staff also was suggesting that the council wait to appoint a commission until the sustainability manager was hired and could have an active role. Mayor Piercy stated her preference for modifying Section 2.380(1)(b) of the ordinance as follows: b) practices to grow and create sustainable business and jobs in the city publicly committing the City of Eugene to sustainable practices and to businesses that produce sustainable products and services. She did not have a preference regarding the size of the commission as long as the members represented a broad range of interests. She wanted to discuss whether proceeding with hearings on the ordinance before the sustainability manager was hired would be a problem. She thought the appointment process should be as uniform as possible across boards and commissions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Taylor felt that a twelve-member commission was too large and preferred seven members. She thought appointments should be made similar to the process used for the Charter Review Committee, with each councilor submitting two recommendations from among applicants and the council making the final choice. She said the ordinance should proceed and not wait for staff to be hired. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor regarding a seven-member commission as the most effective size. Regarding the selection process, he was agreeable with the recommendation that the mayor nominate and the council appoint members as the mayor had taken the lead and accomplished her goals with little dissent among councilors. He was confident the recommended process would result in good appointments and if the nominees were not acceptable to the council, it could request more names. He asked why the council should wait until after the sustainability manager was hired to hold another work session and public hearing on the ordinance. City Manager Taylor said it seemed the logical process was to have the person who would lead the City’s sustainability effort involved in creation of the commission and determining expectations and scope of work. It would also synchronize efforts with the availability of resources in the FY08 budget to support the commission’s activities. Mr. Poling said the commission could be appointed but not meet until staff support was available. Ms. Solomon favored a smaller commission of seven or nine members. She asked why the Police Commis- sion appointment process was different from some other boards and commissions. Ms. Walston said that was how the ordinance establishing the Police Commission was written in 1998. She thought it might be based on the idea that appointment by the mayor could be a more stable model and less prone to politics. Ms. Solomon preferred that the council nominate and appoint commission members. She agreed with Mr. Poling that Mayor Piercy had done an excellent job of shepherding the sustainability issue to this point, but there would be different mayors in the future and it would be the council’s responsibility to move forward. Ms. Bettman said she was willing to send the ordinance as written, with the amendment suggested by Mayor Piercy, forward to a public hearing. She supported a 12-member commission because it would fulfill a very different role than other commissions; it required a broad range of expertise and members with access to resources regarding sustainability strategies used successfully in other jurisdictions. She could accept a 9- member commission with each councilor and the mayor appointing members but thought the ordinance language was the best approach. She saw no reason to delay the public hearing and adoption of the ordinance until the sustainability manager was hired. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to take the ordinance forward to a pub- lic hearing with the Mayor Piercy’s suggested amendment. Mr. Zelenka said the issue was consistent with the sustainability goal the council had just adopted and he agreed that there should not be a delay in moving forward. He disagreed with a statement in the agenda item summary that there had not been substantial debate or discussion on the number of commission members or appointment process. He said an amended motion proposed by former councilor David Kelly at an earlier work session specifically outlined a 12-member body with City Council appointment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Zelenka noted that the Human Rights Commission and SBI had 15 and 16 members respectively and both bodies work very well. He said an argument in favor of having a larger group was the importance of having a diversity of opinion represented on the sustainability commission; having more ideas was better than fewer ideas. He like the concept of councilors each appointing one member and the full council appointing four members. He said if there needed to be an odd number on the commission he would propose having a 13-member body with the thirteenth member being a representative from the council. Ms. Ortiz supported Ms. Bettman’s motion. She thought it was important to reflect the larger community on the commission as the scope of work had not yet been determined and it was essential to have different passions and opinions represented. She said she could support the concept of a 13-member commission and preferred to have the council appoint members as it gave the council ownership of the sustainability initiatives. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Bettman clarified that the motion was to move the ordinance as written, with Mayor Piercy’s amendment regarding language in Section 2.380(1)(b), forward to a public hearing. Ms. Solomon reiterated her concern that a 12-member commission was an unmanageable size and was not certain she could support the motion. Mr. Clark supported the motion and said he could even support the idea of the mayor appointing commis- sion members. He appreciated the leadership Mayor Piercy had shown with the diverse interests involved in the SBI and would trust her wisdom in appointments. Ms. Taylor commented that Mayor Piercy had done a good job but she would not be mayor forever. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the ordinance to establish a commission composed of seven citizens. City Attorney Glenn Klein pointed out that if the commission was changed to seven members that meant the appointment process of each councilor appointing a member would have to be changed. Ms. Taylor restated her motion as “I move to amend the ordinance to establish a commission composed of seven citizens with each councilor suggesting one or two people from the pool of applicants and the full council appointing.” Mr. Poling withdrew his second. There being no other second, the motion died. Mr. Poling said he withdrew his second because of concern that trying to make amendments “on the fly” would create problems. He preferred to send the ordinance to a public hearing as written and the council could amend it at a later date. He supported Ms. Bettman’s motion but that did not mean he supported the proposed ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 3 Regarding each councilor appointing a commission member, Ms. Bettman remarked that while Mayor Piercy had a significant positive influence on the sustainability initiative, she would not always be mayor. She felt that each councilor appointing a member and four members being appointed by the full council would facilitate a buy-in by each councilor’s constituency. She said that the future direction of sustainabil- ity would require the support of the entire community and each councilor’s constituents, instead of moving the initiative forward with a split vote. She hoped the makeup of the committee would help avoid divisive- ness and polarization. Mr. Zelenka thought that all commissions should have an odd number of members. He noted that all other commissions had a councilor as a member and he thought that created a liaison and provided input from a council perspective. Mr. Zelenka proposed a friendly amendment to change the composition of the sus- tainability commission to 13, with the thirteenth member being a city councilor ap- pointed by the mayor. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Piercy supported the friendly amendment. The motion as amended passed, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: River Road/Santa Clara Annexation Policy City Manager Taylor introduced Central Services Executive Manager Jim Carlson to present an overview and background of the City’s existing approach to annexation policy. Mr. Carlson said the issue arose with respect to River Road/Santa Clara annexations, but related to the City’s annexation policy in general. He provided an excerpt from the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan (Metro Plan), as that was the basis of the City’s annexation policy. He said the Metro Plan assumed that the cities of Eugene and Springfield were the logical service providers within the urban growth boundary (UGB). He said it was clear during meetings with citizens in the River Road/Santa Clara area than many of them did not agree with those principles of the Metro Plan and believed that the existing provision of services by multiple service providers, special districts, Lane County and the City of Eugene was adequate and acceptable. He noted letters from both the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhood associations supporting that position. Mr. Carlson used maps to illustrate current city limits and recent annexation activities in the Bethel/Danebo and Willakenzie areas. He said that hundreds of annexations had occurred in the River Road area since adoption of the Metro Plan in 1982 and those were all voluntary annexations in the sense that they were initiated by the property owners, frequently because annexation was required in order to allow development of property at an urban density. He said about 40 percent of the River Road/Santa Clara area was inside of Eugene’s city limits and many of the annexed areas were noncontiguous to the main body of the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Carlson pointed out that Senate Bill (SB) 417 would abolish the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission and the council might wish to schedule a separate work session on the subject of the commission. He described the role of the boundary commission, including responsibility for annexations, and said under the City’s current policy all annexations were voluntary and went directly to the commission without involvement of the City Council or Planning Commission. He explained the boundary commission had two processes, one of which was an expedited process at the applicant’s request that eliminated the need for a public hearing if none of the affected districts asked for one. He said that process would not exist if the commission was abolished and the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 222 related to City annexations would be in effect, requiring a City Council public hearing on all annexations and increasing the council’s workload. Mr. Carlson said another feature of having a boundary commission was that noncontiguous annexations were allowed in boundary commission areas and most of the River Road/Santa Clara annexations had been noncontiguous annexation of isolated parcels of vacant land that the owners wished to develop. He said that for those types of annexations to continue, the City would have to annex more road right-of-way to connect those parcels to the main body of the City. He said 25 to 28 annexations occurred per year with 40 percent in River Road, 40 percent in Santa Clara and the remaining 20 percent in the rest of the City. He said the City’s ordinance on annexation would need to be amended as it currently required the boundary commission to approve any annexations approved by the council. He said that was particularly a factor in island annexations, which could be initiated and approved by the City but under the current ordinance would require a secondary approval by the boundary commission. Mr. Carlson explained there had never been an island annexation in River Road and Santa Clara; the last island annexation initiated by the City occurred approximately 15 years ago and affected parcels along West th 11 Avenue. He said there was a series of large island annexations in the 1970s that essentially completed annexation of the Willakenzie area south of Beltline. He noted that the agenda materials included the council’s policy, approved in 1993, regarding the addition of road rights-of-way to privately initiated annexation proposals. He reviewed that policy and said that when staff requested annexation of road right- of-way, it was consistent with the policy. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged the presence of members of the River Road/Santa Clara community and Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green. Ms. Bettman said the boundary commission issue warranted a separate work session. She asked if SB 417 included a provision for noncontiguous annexation. Mr. Carlson replied it did not; it merely abolished the boundary commission. He said that such a provision would require an amendment to ORS 222 and would affect all cities in Oregon. Ms. Bettman agreed with the Metro Plan that the City was the logical provider of urban services. She did not think River Road/Santa Clara residents disagreed with the plan. She thought the aggressive practice of island annexations was scaring people because of the financial hardships imposed on property owners in the past by requiring them to connect to sewers. She agreed with the need for sewers but the issue was more one of the process and not the eventual outcome. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Bettman declared that her reading of the City’s policy related to road rights-of-way annexations suggested that use of the word “should” instead of “shall” allowed staff discretion on whether to seek inclusion of road rights-of-way in an annexation. Mr. Klein agreed that “should” did not mean “shall,” but the policy would require justification from staff if road right-of-way annexation was not requested; otherwise, any adjudication would question why the City did not comply with what appeared to be an applicable policy. Ms. Bettman said the boundary commission had exercised that discretion by not granting every road right- of-way addition the City requested. Mr. Carlson responded that the City only requested the addition of roads in about 50 percent of the annexation proposals. He said the boundary commission had been somewhat inconsistent about agreeing to include road rights-of-way. Ms. Bettman felt that the council could give direction to the City Manager to halt the practice and that was the motion she would be making. City Manager Taylor indicated that the City was using a best management practice similar to that used by other jurisdictions related to noncontiguous annexations and logical provision of services. Mr. Clark asked if the City was currently in compliance with Metro Plan provisions to identify methods of establishing an urban transition program to eventually provide provision of key urban services only by cities. Mr. Carlson said a plan was currently in place and how well it worked depended on the service. He gave examples of contracting with districts to provide services to portions of the City, but thought some of those agreements were less effective than they could have been. Mr. Clark clarified that he was asking if there was a plan for transitioning annexation. Mr. Carlson replied that the Metro Plan provision cited by Mr. Clark related more to interim service delivery methods than to a plan for eventually annexing the entire area. He said there was no timeline or process for ultimate annexation of the area; the Metro Plan did not require such a plan, but asked that an active annexation program be undertaken. Mr. Clark asked if the street annexation program had changed over time. Mr. Carlson said the program evolved over time; shortly after adoption of the Metro Plan the practice had been to sometimes annex the street in front of the property or occasionally only half of the street. He said in many cases the annexations were sufficiently isolated that no street was included; increased annexation in certain areas over the past five years had resulted in more frequent staff recommendations to include streets because service delivery would be more efficient if the road was included. He said in most cases the requests were made when 50 percent of the front footage was already within the city limits. Mr. Clark asked if the City operated like other metropolitan areas in similar circumstances. Mr. Carlson pointed out that Eugene was the only jurisdiction that still had a boundary commission and different jurisdictions responded in different ways. He gave the examples of Portland and Gresham, whose active, aggressive annexation policies and practices resulted in very little unincorporated land in that area. He said in the Salem area the approach was to form the City of Keizer; Eugene was using the incremental annexa- tion approach with voluntary annexations only. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Taylor asked if island annexation would be more difficult without the boundary commission. Mr. Carlson replied they would actually be simpler because island annexations currently had to be initiated by the council, approved by the council and then forwarded to the boundary commission for additional public hearing and review. He said if there was no boundary commission, the City Council would be the only entity involved in the annexation. Ms. Taylor asked if the street would be annexed if only one property was involved. Mr. Carlson replied that typically the street would not be involved unless the location was near or adjacent to other properties that had already been annexed. Ms. Taylor asked if an island could incorporate as a city. Mr. Carlson said while nothing in the Metro Plan prohibited that, it would be difficult because of the way services were provided. Ms. Taylor observed that some property owners were not aware of whether they were within the city limits. She believed that citizens should have a right to control whether they were annexed. Mr. Zelenka supported having a work session on the boundary commission issue. He understood there were no forced annexations and the real issue was island annexations, which still concerned people even though there was no plan for that type of annexation. He agreed that cities were the logical providers of services and all of those properties should eventually come into the City; the issue was how and when. He said the City should establish a process to build trust on both sides, including discussing the status of refinement plans. He requested information from staff on the advantages and disadvantages of curb and gutter and stormwater drainage ditches. He would agree with a motion to direct the City Manager to halt island annexations as a good first step. Ms. Solomon supported the City’s annexation policy as it made sense. She said that over time, all of the property would need to be annexed but it was entirely voluntary at this point. She was comfortable that there had been no island annexations in many years and did not envision that the current or future councils would initiate them. She was reminded of the council’s earlier discussion of the transportation system and the fact that over 40,000 of Eugene’s 80,000 jobs were held by people who did not live within the city limits. She felt that people who used the roads and enjoyed services should be a part of the City and contribute to the support of those services. Mr. Pryor asked if the reference to providing for the efficient delivery of city services was addressing all services or focusing on specific services. Mr. Carlson said there were implications for all services, with perhaps the exception of library services. He explained the difficulties and inefficiencies of having multiple service providers and the problems that could create for emergency responders when there was confusion over jurisdiction. Mr. Pryor asked if there were implications for public works costs if only portions of a street were annexed. Mr. Carlson said there were issues but the City had a maintenance agreement with Lane County to identify areas of maintenance responsibility; the agreement was adjusted annually to accommodate the annexation of roads. Mr. Pryor asked if not annexing a street until all properties along it were annexed would be practical or present insurmountable problems for police and fire services. Mr. Carlson said there was no legal prohibition but there was a practical problem with respect to 911 dispatching if all of the properties were in the City but the street was not. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 7 Mayor Piercy said it seemed more aggressive annexation was creating tension in the discussion of transition. She asked about the status of the transition process and suggested that if the current policy remained, it would be helpful to have a timeline established for conclusion. She asked for comments on the council making a statement that it was not interested in doing island annexations. Ms. Bettman said just stating the council was not interested in island annexations while the staff was pursuing annexation of road rights-of-way meant that people would be surrounded by annexed roads while their property remained unannexed. She said that a promise not to pursue island annexation was not a guarantee. She referred to a letter from the River Road community organization underscoring the fact that annexing streets adjacent to unannexed properties created as many problems as it solved. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to halt the practice of adding road right-of-way to annexation requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area where such additions would create islands. Ms. Bettman restated her motion as “I move to direct the City Manager to halt the practice of adding road right-of-way to annexation requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area adjacent to unannexed property. Ms. Ortiz accepted the re- stated motion. Mr. Carlson asked if Ms. Bettman’s intent was that street annexation could not be requested unless property on both sides of the street was in the City. Ms. Bettman said that was her intent. Mr. Zelenka suggested keeping the language simple by prohibiting island annexations. Ms. Bettman said there could be a situation where it would not create an entire island because the unannexed property was not completely surrounded. Mr. Zelenka said he did not see a problem with road annexation; it was the creation of an island that concerned people. He did not disagree with the City’s current road annexation policy and said the council could just direct the City Manager to halt island annexations. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment: “…annexation requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area where such additions would create islands adjacent to un- annexed property.” City Manager Taylor clarified that Mr. Zelenka was supportive of rational service provision annexation of road right-of-way for police, fire and maintenance but not when it would create an island that people feared would enable the council or boundary commission to act without their input. Mr. Zelenka agreed. He said he would not care if an island was created as long as it was not annexed. City Manager Taylor said that the City’s practice was not to annex islands. He said the staff had no plans to request island annexations in River Road/Santa Clara or any other part of the City. Mr. Klein pointed out that the there had been no disposition of Mr. Zelenka’s friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Bettman asked for clarification before she accepted or declined the friendly amendment. She asked what road annexation scenarios would occur if only island annexations were prohibited. Mr. Carlson said there were many options. He distributed a map illustrating annexation options along River Road that would annex road right-of-way adjacent to annexed properties but not form islands. Ms. Bettman commented that annexation of the road rights-of-way was not required and the road could remain under County ownership and maintenance. Mr. Carlson said there was a maintenance agreement with the County and the City actually maintained those sections except for preservation activities. Ms. Ortiz said the council’s discussion had indicated the City did not engage in the practice of island annexations. Mr. Carlson said it was a legal option for the City but had not happened in 15 years and had never happened in River Road/Santa Clara. Ms. Ortiz restated the motion she had asked Ms. Bettman to make for her: “I move to direct the City Manager to halt the practice of adding the right-of-way to annexa- tion requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area.” Ms. Bettman agreed with the restated motion. Ms. Ortiz agreed she had provided the second. Mr. Clark recognized the importance of the issue to River Road/Santa Clara residents but he was concerned about taking a tool away from the City. He wished to be sensitive to City and County residents and the process for transition. He said residents questioned the benefits of annexation and he thought there were benefits, but it was a broader issue of shared responsibilities within a community. He said that residents should share responsibility for tax-funded services such as human services and road maintenance. Mr. Clark felt the need to represent the interests of his constituents who resided in the City, but as a show of good faith, because the process mattered, he wanted to support this type of motion to avoid any de facto taking of rights when the opportunity for an island was created. He said the motion went further than just prohibiting islands and he was not certain he could support removing the tool for every area in the City. He asked if the motion would take the City out of compliance with the Metro Plan and might there be unintended consequences to the motion. He asked what effect there would be on City residents as opposed to County residents if the motion passed. Mr. Klein said he was not aware of any conflict with the Metro Plan but would have to research the matter further. He said he was not concerned with a motion that halted the practice, but recommended that the council allow staff to bring back a resolution to amend in order to avoid legal problems if there were challenges. City Manager Taylor said it was difficult to ascertain if there would be unintended consequences. He recommended continuing current practices and was opposed to a public policy that stated the City would not annex any road right-of-way because it created complex problems for police, fire and other services. Ms. Solomon said she would not support the motion as it seemed to be a solution in search of a problem. She noted the City only annexed street rights-of-way 50 percent of the time and last year there were 25 annexations. She preferred to see the City put energy into developing an annexation proposal instead of removing a tool from the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 9 Ms. Bettman remarked that the policy was only to process voluntary annexations, but the streets were not voluntary annexations. She preferred language related to unannexed property but the motion was specific to the River Road/Santa Clara area. She said the City would need to negotiate a process for annexing roads with the residents of that area and the motion would provide a push in that direction. Mr. Pryor said he was supportive of the motion when it addressed islands, but could not support the motion as restated as it went too far. Mr. Clark asked if a friendly amendment to apply the policy only to island annexations would be accepted. Ms. Ortiz declined to accept the friendly amendment. She said if the current practice was to do no island annexations there was no benefit to the amendment. She said the motion was specific to the River Road/Santa Clara area based on concerns she had heard from the community. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor that the motion went too far. He wanted to respect the principle of the annexation process and agreed with Mr. Zelenka that road annexations should be allowed as long as there were no island annexations of property. He would not support the motion. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend the motion by adding the phrase “where such additions would create islands.” The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy said that the inclusion of a reference to islands would prevent problems with provision of services and she was supportive of the motion as amended. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 10