Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/28/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 28, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Gary Pap~. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. Mayor Torrey presented a plaque to Yoshio Tsuchie expressing appreciation to him as an intern from Japan. He said he had been glad to know Mr. Tsuchie. Mr. Tsuchie thanked Mayor Torrey and thanked the council for the plaque. He said he enjoyed his stay in Eugene very much. Mr. Lee said he had enjoyed his discussions with Mr. Tsuchie very much and thought it took considerable courage for someone outside the culture to spend time in Eugene and attempt to understand and analyze a different government system. Mayor Torrey recognized Mr. Rayor. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to reconsider the vote the council took on neighborhood boundaries. Mr. Kelly indicated his opposition to the motion, as he did not think it was necessary at this point and the council would discuss the subject again on March 15. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Weinman said that he understood the issue in question was resolved to the satisfaction of the parties involved, and staff developed compromise language for the council to consider on March 15. The motion failed, 3:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner voting yes. A. Work Session: Review of Bethel-Danebo Scoping Report and Recommendations Richie Weinman, Planning and Development Department, provided background on the Bethel-Danebo Scoping Process, and reviewed the recommendations of the Bethel-Danebo Scoping Group. He noted the inclusion of the final report in the meeting packet. Mr. Meisner was pleased with the report and the clarity of its recommendations. He liked the suggestion that the area west of Beltline could become a separate association as the area was divided by the highway. He wished the scoping group the best of luck in gaining cooperation from the railroad for desired improvements to the railroad crossings. Mr. Meisner was glad the City was able to follow through on the branch library in Bethel because he believed the neighborhood had been skeptical it would occur. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Regarding the neighborhood's desire for an active police presence, Mr. Meisner said he hoped the neighborhood was not relying on a police substation for that purpose, given that there were no sworn officers in the substations unless business paid the costs. Mr. Weinman described an arrangement whereby police officers would be able to stop and write reports at a location in the neighborhood. Mr. Kelly supported the recommendations, saying they would be good for most neighborhoods in the city as the issues underlying them were shared by many neighborhoods. Regarding the scoping group's desire for street lighting in older neighborhoods, he noted that street lighting would soon be required in new subdivisions. Mr. Kelly found the pie charts in the report to be confusing and in error and asked that they be reexamined. Mr. Kelly liked the background information included in the report. He commended staff and the scoping group for their work. Ms. Taylor clarified that by accepting the report the City Council was not approving an urban renewal district for the area. Mr. Weinman concurred. Mr. Rayor commended the report but indicated he shared Mr. Kelly's concern about the pie charts. Mr. Lee appreciated the report. He thought the scoping process had worked well. He believed that there was money available from the Oregon Transportation Commission for safety improvements to railroad crossings. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to accept the Bethel Scoping Report and encourage the staff and community to develop implementation strategies. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. B. Work Session: A Review of Police and Fire Stations Public Information Sessions Jan Bohman of the City Manager's Office introduced John Brown of the Police/Fire Stations Task Force. Mr. Brown reviewed the results of the public information sessions. He reviewed themes in the input, which were focused on economic, timing, and physical issues. He reported that he did not hear anyone say there was no need for the issue of the stations to be addressed, but much concern was expressed about cost. He invited questions from the council. Mr. Meisner suggested that education and information was crucial to the successful passage of a bond measure to underwrite the costs of new police and fire stations. For that reason, he was concerned about the May time line. Mr. Brown agreed that was a concern, but said to not place the measure on the ballot was not to take a chance. Mr. Rayor distributed copies of text of a motion he intended to make at a later time concerning the funding of the police station. He reviewed the motion, which was intended to limit the amount of money the City could spend on the station and ensure that any unused or unneeded funds would be returned to the taxpayers. Mr. Rayor termed the existing resolution "business as usual" and termed his motion "new government." MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 2 Work Session City Attorney Glenn Klein noted the implications of Ballot Measure 5 on Mr. Rayor's motion. He believed that the motion could and should be revised to accomplish Mr. Rayor's intent. He recommended the use of the word "equip" rather than "furnish" in the motion. Mr. Rayor indicated acceptance of the recommendation. Mr. Kelly said one of his constituents, Carol Berg, asked him to distribute written comments she had prepared because she had been unable to attend the public information session. Staff distributed copies of Ms. Berg's comments. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Wong clarified the project costs and financing costs, noting the project costs were approximately $36.62 million, and issuance and interim financing costs were roughly $600,000. He said that the source of the financing was not determined; the City could be issuing construction warrants depending on the cost of money at the time. Mr. Kelly indicated support for Mr. Rayor's motion if it could be reworded to satisfy the concerns of legal counsel and Finance staff. He noted Mr. Wong's identification of two strategies on page 19 of the meeting packet that could potentially do what Mr. Rayor was attempting to accomplish, reduce the bond size. He suggested that language such as that could replace the phrase "use to reduce the property taxes used to pay for bonds." Mr. Wong said that there were two opportunities to reduce the taxpayer support; if resources became available prior to issuance, such as from the sale of assets, the City could reduce the bond amount. If, when the project was completed, there were excess proceeds from bond issue, the City would, at that time, determine whether to defease some or all of the bonds or reduce the debt service levy for that year. He said that the City would want to pay the bonds with the longest life to reduce interest payments and maximize the benefit to property tax payers. At this time, he could not say what option would be selected because the bond had not been structured, and it was premature to structure the bond without knowing market conditions. Mr. Kelly wanted to ensure the phrasing in Mr. Rayor's amendment regarding the reduction in property taxes allowed or required the City to use the strategies Mr. Wong described. Mr. Wong said that the amendment would allow any of the options he cited. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Brown reported a total of 14 people attended the public information sessions. Ms. Taylor said she had talked to more people than that about the subject, and she believed the measure would lose if it included both the fire and police stations. She asked if anyone mentioned the need for two measures instead of one. Mr. Brown said one person at the sessions mentioned that option. Task force members response was that even if police moved out and the fire function remained, or vice versa, City Hall would still have to be upgraded to seismic standards for essential services, which was a less cost-effective option. Mayor Torrey wanted to ensure that if the council was going to move the question forward with the ballot measure, the article in The Register-Guard the next day spoke to Mr. Rayor's question. He clarified that Mr. Rayor's intention was that all money in the measure be dedicated only to new downtown fire and police stations, and any savings would be directed to the public. Mr. Rayor concurred with Mayor Torrey's summation of his intent. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Rayor if his motion would preclude the construction of a water rescue facility near the river. Mr. Rayor said yes, adding that the task force had not identified that as a need. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Torrey noted he had received an e-mail message from Ms. Taylor asking that no motion be passed at the meeting later that night because of the hearing scheduled for that evening. He said that the council could take action at a meeting on March 8. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein reviewed the time line placing the issue on the ballot, noting action must be taken by March 15. Mr. Meisner asked if Measure 5 allowed the City to furnish the stations from the bond proceeds. Mr. Klein said yes. Mr. Meisner said that had not previously been clear to him. Mr. Kelly noted the recommendation of the City Manager that the sale of assets be used not to reduce the bond amount, but to upgrade City Hall for nonessential services. He thought that was a more prudent strategy than that of reducing the bond amount. C. Work Session: TransPlan Planning Director Jan Childs joined the council to complete a discussion of the staff responses to TransPlan testimony submitted regarding land use/nodal development and questions from the elected officials. She noted the inclusion of a letter from the Friends of Eugene regarding nodal development in the meeting packet. Ms. Childs anticipated joint work sessions with the other adopting bodies to agree to a revised definition of nodal development. Ms. Childs reported on the discussions of the other adopting bodies regarding nodal development. Regarding the Springfield discussion, she said that the City Council had expressed concern that definition of nodal development be flexible enough to accommodate the work that city had done through pilot projects in the Mohawk and Jasper-Natron areas. The council was also concerned that however the jurisdictions end up defining the phrase, it not be interpreted as a "one size fits all" approach, and that each city have the opportunity to implement the strategy in an individual manner. The Lane County board had an extensive discussion and the commissioners indicated interest in seeing more work on the definition of nodal development but did not offer specific direction. The board expressed interest that whatever definition was selected recognized the market realities of potential development. Ms. Childs said the Lane Transit District (LTD) board also supported revisiting the definition of nodal development, and looked to Eugene and Springfield to take a lead on that. The LTD board was also interested in the integration between nodal development planning and Bus Rapid Transit. Ms. Childs said that staff would track the issues following each meeting and identify where agreement existed and where more discussion was needed at the joint work session, which would probably not occur until May. Mr. Lee asked why Springfield was concerned about Land Use Policy 5. Ms. Childs said that Land Conservation and Development Commission had asked that as part of the adoption of TransPlan, the community commit to applying the nodal development Metro Plan designation to the nodal development areas the community agreed to move forward with, and to adopt and apply interim measures to protect those areas from incompatible development while the process of nodal development took place. Springfield was concerned about its ability to do that work within a year, particularly without a commitment of funding from the State to underwrite the costs of that work. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Lee asked why Department of Land Conservation and Development chose one year to complete the effort, and if making that commitment would draw resources away from other priorities. Ms. Childs said that was Springfield's concern. The one-year commitment was a desire that the community "get on with it." She suggested it was a beginning point for further discussion with the State. Mr. Meisner expressed hope that the nodal development text was not so minimal, flexible, and vague that it became meaningless. He asked staff to identify those areas related to nodal development where Eugene could act independently. Mr. Meisner considered the State's comments to be among the most meaningful pieces of testimony, adding that if the community did not apply interim measures to protect those nodes, it could lose the opportunities presented by the nodes. While he doubted the task could be accomplished in a year, he believed it should be attempted. Ms. Childs noted that the State had asked the metropolitan area to prepare a draft nodal development overlay zone. Staff agreed, and public comment on a Eugene overlay zone would occur during a hearing before the Planning Commission on March 28. Mr. Kelly said a nodal development definition as broad as the current definition would not accomplish the goals of TransPlan. He wondered if the definition hybrid staff had discussed previously would allow the nodal development contemplated by Springfield and, if not, was there some modification that could be made that accomplished that. Mr. Kelly endorsed Land Use Policy 5 as a good start, and said he thought the community needed to commit to the one-year period requested by the State to protect the nodes. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the State was calling for the interim protection measures to be adopted within a year of the adoption of TransPlan, not one year from today, and she thought there was sufficient time to complete that task. Mr. Meisner briefly left the meeting. Mayor Torrey noted the temporary loss of a quorum. Mr. Lee suggested that staff ask the State if it intended to financially support the effort of developing interim protection measures. Ms. Childs noted Springfield's interest in that same question. Other councilors agreed that the question should be asked of the State. Mr. Rayor asked if the City employed overlay districts. Ms. Childs said yes; for example, site review is an overlay zone. She confirmed that the City also had overlays in the form of natural resource districts for waterside protection and wetland buffers. Ms. Childs said in the case of the nodal development overlay zone, the community would be looking at something to apply on an interim basis until the nodal development plans were completed and zoning districts applied to the area. Mr. Rayor asked for information about Portland nodal overlay zones. Ms. Childs did not know, and said would find out more about the overlay zones employed in Portland. Mr. Kelly said that Larry Shaw, a land use attorney who worked with Portland Metro when it was developing its Region 2040 plan, had testified that agency had, at the metropolitan level, applied circles of a half-mile radius and placed, within the inner quarter mile of that, strong restrictions and conditions that included minimum density and use restrictions. Metro then gave the individual jurisdictions the opportunity to more completely refine those boundaries. He believed there was a lot to be learned from what Metro had accomplished. Mr. Kelly added that those circles were more often than not drawn around light rail stations, and suggested that it would make sense to draw those circles locally around Bus Rapid Transit stations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that if nodal development was central to the successful implementation of TransPlan, he would like to see Policy 5 strengthened further. He said that the policy allowed each jurisdiction to apply the designation inside its boundaries as each preferred, but that gave no assurance that the designation would be applied to enough zones to result in an outcome that matched the TransPlan model. The policy could be satisfied by the application of the designation to a single node. He did not know how to rewrite the policy to satisfy his concerns. Ms. Childs noted that testimony was received questioning whether all areas shown as potential nodal development areas on the map in TransPlan should be nodal developments. All the nodal development areas were included on the map at the request of the Planning Commission, who wanted to show all potential areas. However, it was not the commission's expectation that "all nodes were equal" in terms of emphasis. Mr. Meisner returned to the meeting. Mr. Kelly reiterated that the policy needed to include some assurance it will accomplish the plan's goals. He asked if the TransPlan model assumed each nodal development was completely developed in the planning period. Ms. Childs said the plan did not assume full buildout of those nodes. She said that staff would examine the text in question for possible changes. Mr. Rayor indicated he shared Mr. Kelly's concerns, and suggested the text be modified with a reference to a significant good faith effort. Mr. Kelly requested information on the implementation of the nodal development areas. He wanted to ensure that the process was short enough to maximize the development potential of those areas. Ms. Childs responded that for an area inside Eugene, the City Council would decide on the application of the designation; she would recommend that the City apply the Metro Plan and Eugene overlay zone concurrently. If the area was unincorporated, its designation would require the concurrence of Lane County. Regarding the concerns expressed by Messrs. Kelly and Rayor, Mr. Meisner said that the Eugene City Council knew what it intended to do with the designation and would attempt to adopt and apply measures to protect the nodal areas, but he did not know how Eugene could force its partners in the plan to carry out nodal development in a similar fashion. He was unsure a good faith or significant effort clause was needed, but urged staff to give the issue some thought. Mr. Meisner said it might be another situation where Eugene would act independently from its partners. Mr. Rayor expressed concern about the Metro approach and the potential that sites unlikely to be part of a node could be included inside those circles, such as the Valley River Center parking lot. He believed that having nodes outside of industrial plants or regional shopping centers was a good idea, but he thought the boundaries should skirt those uses. He said it was unlikely that high-rise residential housing would be built on the Valley River Parking lot. Ms. Childs said that she was unlikely to recommend to the council that it adopt the Metro approach; early in the TransPlan process, staff studied the various nodal development areas to more precisely identify their locations. Mr. Rayor asked if the map could be modified to include the road system and the zoning to give the viewer context. Ms. Childs was unsure the map could be ready by the next work session, but she thought a larger scale map showing the information requested could be produced. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Responding to Mr. Rayor's remarks, Mr. Meisner said he shared his concerns about such sites as Valley River Center, but emphasized the importance of protecting the nodal development areas from incompatible development to preserve the community's options for those sites. He said that without those protections, the City was unlikely to see any development of housing on those sites. Mr. Meisner said that the guidelines for the nodes, established by the council, would determine what was incompatible development. Regarding the council's direction to staff to ask the State about the status of funding, Mr. Kelly said if the City was committed to nodal development and State funding was not forthcoming, the council needed to make the effort a local priority and address it through the budget. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the phrase "owner/developer interest" in the list on page 17 of Appendix F, Ms. Childs recommended the entire phrase be deleted. D. Action: Approval of City Council Minutes of January 24, 2000 Council Coordinator Kate Rowles apologized that the minutes of January 24 were resubmitted in error. Mr. Rayor asked the council to consider a topic not on the agenda. He distributed a proposed revision to the resolution related to the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) charter amendment:. Section 4. The City Manager is directed to work with EWEB to develop a joint resolution for adoption by EWEB and the council by March 15. The joint resolution shall provide that EWEB's telecommunication activities comply with the following: O service to every address in the EWEB service area; 2) open platform or open access; 3) collaboration with other governmental entities; 4) will not be funded with revenues from the water, electric, or other utilities; 5) use only nonrecourse bonds, which will not be issued without voter approval; and 6) involve a significant public involvement. If a joint resolution is not adopted by March 15, then this resolution is automatically repealed. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the resolution was intended to take what had been general representations made by EWEB, to turn those general representations into something more specific, and to make them binding. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Klein said that he had not discussed the text with EWEB staff. Mayor Torrey said that the suggested modification to the resolution was a demonstration of why the City should not be giving away its charter authority. He advocated for giving EWEB authority for provision of telecommunications services through a Memorandum of Understanding, coupled with a vote for bonding capacity. Mr. Kelly questioned the need for the modification given that EWEB had an elected board and would have to stand by the representations it had made or face the political consequences. He was also concerned about the lack of a common understanding of phrases such as "open platform" or "open access." Mayor Torrey said that it was true the EWEB commissioners could be recalled if they failed to live up to the representations they had made, he questioned whether that was the fallback the council wanted to rely on. He did not think so, particularly since EWEB could build the telecommunications infrastructure it wished to MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 7 Work Session construct with a Memorandum of Understanding. Such an approach would give the City more control, which it would lose if the utility was given charter authority by the council. Mr. Meisner suggested the council to postpone substantive discussion on the resolution until the regular meeting when EWEB representatives would be present. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding the number of elections that would occur and whether EWEB would seek authority to provide content from the voters, Mr. Klein clarified that the resolution called for an election to approve the business plan and an election to authorize the issuance of bonds. Mr. Kelly added that EWEB had made no commitment to go back to the voters if the future if it determined it wished to provide content. Mr. Meisner found that unacceptable. Mr. Meisner asked legal counsel if either the charter amendment or Memorandum of Understanding provided a greater level of legal protection to the City in the case of a law suit. Mr. Klein said that the if someone decided to challenge what EWEB was doing, it was unlikely the City would be named as a co-defendant. Mr. Meisner suggested that the situation pointed out the need for a charter review process regarding the status of the City and EWEB as distinct entities. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein confirmed that as drafted, the charter amendment gave EWEB the authority to provide content without voter approval. He said that the City did have continued authority over bonding; with or without Mr. Rayor's amendment to the resolution, if EWEB wanted to issue nonrecourse or any other bond for a period beyond 12 months, it must return to the council for approval. The council could condition its approval of voter approval of the provision of content. Mr. Klein noted that the use of nonrecourse bonds did not preclude the use of water and electric revenues to support the system; EWEB has stated its intent not to use those revenues orally, but not in writing. The amendment to the resolution made it clear that those revenues would not be used. Mr. Wong pointed out that unless the council called for a public vote on the bonds in the resolution or the charter amendment, EWEB was not obligated to take the bond out for a vote. Regarding the use of nonrecourse bonds, Mr. Wong doubted that EWEB would let those bonds default because it would impinge on the ratings of its other bonds. The utility would have to pay those bonds from some source. Ms. Taylor noted her support for EWEB's proposal, but said she also wanted an process that protected the consumer. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 9 Work Session