Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/08/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Council Chambers--City Hall November 8, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Gary PapS, Gary Rayor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. DINNER WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL Mayor James D. Torrey called the work session of the City Council to order. A. Tour and Work Session: Federal Courthouse/City Hall Alternatives Ms. Nathanson, co-chair of the Council Committee on City Hall Alternatives, introduced the agenda item. She identified the two issues facing the council: 1) the federal government's selection of the 6th Avenue site as the site for the new federal courthouse; and 2) the need for a seismic upgrade of City Hall. She said that the seismic situation put the City's emergency services functions in the downtown at risk. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the council first needed to determine if it was willing to entertain an offer for the current City Hall site from the General Services Administration (GSA). Mr. Kelly, the other co-chair of the committee, introduced the two citizen advisors to the Council Committee on City Hall Alternatives, John Lawless and Carolyn McGuigan. He provided an overview of the work done by the committee regarding the identification of potential sites for a new City Hall and financing mechanisms. He said that the committee would meet again the following day and the council would discuss the issue with the Budget Committee at its meeting November 15. Mr. Kelly noted that the GSA will make a decision on the site by December 15. Ms. Nathanson urged the council to focus on the broad policy issues addressed by the committee rather than debating the advantages and disadvantages of each site that had been discussed. Lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, reviewed a chart mounted on the wall entitled "Building Blocks" for Police, Fire, Municipal Court, and City Haft. The chart illustrated the amount of square footage required for each function and the estimated cost per square foot for each use and site. Mr. Rayor said that the federal government's actions had triggered what he essentially considered a needs assessment. He said that timing was a critical issue, and he did not think the timing in this instance would work out for a new city hall because of the anticipated date of the GSA's MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. decision and the fact a bond election could not be held before the decision date. Mr. Rayor said another issue was urban planning. He briefly described the GSA's plans for the site previously selected and suggested that it would not have as adverse an impact as was feared. He pointed out that the property owners of the lot had the ability to create a similarly sized building now in the absence of a height limitation and the lot's location in the parking exempt zone. Mr. Rayor suggested that the needs assessment be completed and the council consider how to deal with the police and fire functions independently in a timely manner. However, he did not want to return to the taxpayers with a request for more money. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks regarding the needs assessment, which he felt was important to undertake, particularly as it related to the police and fire functions. He said that police and fire had needs that must be met regardless of what happened with City Hall. Mr. Pap~ estimated the costs of addressing those needs at approximately $28 million. He advocated for a bifurcated process that separated those functions from consideration of other City functions. Regarding the other functions in the existing City Hall, Mr. Pap~ said that there were many options the council could pursue, including doing nothing and working with the properties that the City already owned. Ms. Nathanson said that the council must resolve if now was the time to move police and fire from City Hall. She believed that the financial picture was better now than it would be in the future. Regarding the issue of consolidation, Ms. Nathanson said that the term did not mean to her all employees worked downtown under one roof. She said that consolidation could be achieved by a municipal complex consisting of two or three buildings. She said that relocating City staff into the Sears building would help to create such a complex, and she would term that consolidation. Addressing Mr. Papa's remarks suggesting the process be bifurcated, Ms. Nathanson said that there were creative options available to the council. If the council decided now was the time to address the needs of fire and police, she would like the committee to discuss moving administration onto the fourth floor of the library. That could bring certainty to the funding for the library project, and buy the City some time to develop an appropriate solution for the administrative function, perhaps at the Sears site. Mr. Kelly did not want to see the federal courthouse on the 6th Avenue site. He said that the GSA wanted a full block and he was not convinced that a building oriented toward 6th Avenue would not adversely impact the 5th Street Historic District. In addition, he did not believe that current City Hall spaces were adequate, and the federal payment could go to addressing some of those needs. However, he stressed he was not yet comfortable with how the council might fund the additional costs above the federal payment, particularly at a time when other City services were inadequately funded. He said that the different options did not vary much in cost, and urged the council to consider the overall magnitude of cost. Regarding Mr. Rayor's remarks about the potential a large-scale building could be constructed on the 6th Avenue site, Mr. Kelly said he had asked staff to return with proposals about height and scale limitations that could be attached to the property. The meeting recessed while the council toured the existing City Hall facilities for Police, Fire, and Municipal Court. The council reconvened in the McNutt Room following the tour. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mr. Lee asked if there was anything the council could do to address the timing issues identified by Mr. Rayor. Mr. Johnson suggested that the council would have to agree to take a risk, and develop a back-up plan it was comfortable with in the case of failure. Mr. Torrey did not think the issue was an "all or nothing" gamble, adding that the committee could do additional work and identify fall-back positions related to police, fire, and administration in case the public rejected a bond measure. Mr. Lee stressed the importance of having a "Plan B." Ms. Taylor said if Eugene needed a new city hall it should involve long-term planning and it should not be done in a rush because an opportunity or a threat existed. She did not think the siting of the federal courthouse should drive the issue. The public should be involved in a longer discussion about a new city hall site. She believed the Sears site should be retained for the present and that opportunity kept open. Ms. Taylor did not think the voters would approve funding for a new city hall. Mr. Meisner said that if the council rejected federal interest in City Hall, it had to be prepared to accept the 6th Avenue site. He did not think that the site was workable for the community in the long- or short-term. He was concerned about the possibility of agreeing to sell the City Hall site without knowing where else City Hall would go. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the City would need to be creative if it chose to sell City Hall, and suggested the sale of other City properties to offset the cost of remodeling or construction. Mr. Meisner noted questions raised by councilors Pap8 and Rayor regarding the City-owned parking lots in downtown at the last committee meeting and called for a more comprehensive discussion of that issue soon. Mr. Meisner suggested the fire function was the first that could logically be moved from City Hall because it had the lowest price tag and smallest foot print. He asked if the City must retain a downtown fire station to maintain the water rescue function, or could it be moved to 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street. He was unpersuaded the police function should be moved out of downtown because of its relationships with other functions downtown, such as the courts and the jail. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that consolidation did not mean all functions needed to be consolidated in one building. He said that clustering municipal services as described by Ms. Nathanson was interesting to him. He pointed out that the ceiling heights at Municipal Court were not as high as the basement ceiling height in the Sears building, and there was potential that the building could be upgraded to accommodate uses now in City Hall. Mr. Torrey thanked the committee and citizen advisors for the work that had been put into the issue. He wanted the committee to continue its efforts. He said that the City had an opportunity to take advantage of the funding from the court relocation, and he believed the current City Hall was the best site for the courthouse. Mr. Torrey thought the council could come up with a fallback scenario if the public was not prepared to support a funding package. He suggested that savings from current lease payments could be used to finance a new facility. He hoped the council would direct the committee to continue its work. Mr. Torrey believed that at the least the police function should be relocated. He called upon the council to lead even if it did not have all the facts or the research that indicated popular support, and said a decision must be made fairly quickly. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor that the process was not the optimum one. He said the federal government had created the situation, and the council must weigh its options and act in the best interest of the City. He noted that the committee would begin discussion of the back-up options available to the City the next day. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Regarding Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding the siting of the police function downtown, Mr. Kelly said he had asked staff to summarize the plus and minus costs comparing a downtown location and the 2® Avenue and Chambers Street site. He suggested that even if the council decided to sell City Hall to the GSA, the siting of the police function could be done in a more leisurely fashion with more public input. Ms. Nathanson said that the committee had compared costs of construction inside and outside the core, and discussed what functions were appropriately located downtown or elsewhere. The committee had also discussed the concept of "doing no harm," and wanted to ensure whatever the City built did not damage a neighborhood by its presence and that it would even benefit a nd neighborhood. Regarding the 2 Avenue and Chambers Street site, Ms. Nathanson noted that the area was nearly the geographic center of the city and the site could be more efficient for operations. She hoped the council would feel comfortable as the committee attempted to balance fiscal and operational needs of the organization. She pointed out that the City could sell assets and take advantage of different revenue streams. Ms. Nathanson anticipated the committee would bring back a final recommendation to the council. Mr. Rayor said that a decision to sell before the public approved funding was problematic. He termed it putting "the cart before the horse." He pointed out that if the police and fire functions were moved to other facilities, that would free up to 15,000 square foot in City Hall, contributing to the potential of consolidation and avoiding a large financial outlay. Mr. Rayor advocated for going to the taxpayers with choices rather than with demands. Mr. Pap~ noted his concurrence with Ms. Nathanson's remarks. He said that even if the council decided not to sell to the GSA, he would still be concerned about the condition of the police and fire facilities and would push for quick action to resolve that issue. Regarding whether the police function should be downtown, Mr. Pap~ suggested that rather than place police on the lot south of City Hall as had been suggested by Mr. Meisner, the property could be sold. He did not favor placing a facility requiring considerable parking on that site. Mr. Lee pointed out to Mr. Rayor said that there was no specific plan on the table until the committee reached a recommendation and offered it to the council. He hoped the council would see a recommendation before making judgment calls. He agreed with Mr. Pap~ that something must be done about the police and fire functions. Ms. Taylor said that to lead does not mean being pushed, and leaders must let people follow them rather than pull them along. She believed that the process being employed was incorrect and it was moving too fast. She agreed that there was a need for more space for police and fire functions, although she did not think it significantly worse than the space that university professors and school teachers worked in. She asked if police could expand into the Fire Department space if fire was relocated. Mr. Johnson said yes, but pointed out that there was still a seismic issue related to the current City Hall structure. Ms. Taylor called for a thorough public process that involved a vote before any decision was made. Mr. Meisner indicated to Mr. Pap~ that his suggestion regarding the parking lot south of City Hall was hypothetical. He wanted to see an analysis of why downtown was not a valid location for the police function. He pointed out that while 2n°Avenue and Chambers Street was the geographic MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. center of the community, it was distant from the courts and the jail. He believed that the cost of a new police facility was likely to exceed the sale price of the lot south of City Hall. Mr. Pap~ indicated the committee requested an analysis of a downtown police site. Mr. Johnson added the analysis would address both cost and advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Meisner said that citizens often express long-term goals and values that conflict with the present, or shod-term, means to realize those goals and values. For example, the public opposes urban sprawl while often also opposing increased density in their neighborhoods. In this case, the council was hearing that the federal courthouse should not be allowed on the 6th Avenue site but, at best, the public was likely to split on the issue of funding a new city hall. Mr. Meisner said that the council had no authority to mandate a no-build option to the federal government, and if it said no to the city hall site, it was guaranteeing the location of the courthouse on the 6th avenue site, which the public was very opposed to. Mr. Meisner concluded that there was no easy answer. Mr. Meisner preferred a phrased approach, and suggested it would be easiest and quickest to take care of the fire function, followed by the police function, followed by a back-up plan for City Hall. B.Work Session: Curbside Yard Debris Collection Program Mr. Pap~ recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Nancy Young of the Planning and Development Department provided the staff presentation. She described the scope of the current program, noting it was costly and had a Iow participation rate in the two years of operation. Participation was limited by cost, preparation standards, and convenience of collection times. Ms. Young said that during the 1998 rate review, a department advisory committee recommended a regular, more frequent program. Yard debris represents approximately ten percent of all material directed to the land fill. It was difficult to estimate the amount of debris that would be collected with a more frequent program, but she believed it would be approximately 10,000 tons, of which half was new recovery or material now being sent to the landfill. Ms. Young recommended that the current curbside yard debris collection program be dropped and that universal service established. The cost of service would be spread among all residential collection customers in a manner similar to the way recycling is paid for. Pick-up would occur every two weeks throughout the year, and a suitably sized 65-gallon container would be provided to customers by the haulers. She noted that Eugene was the only mid-sized city in the Willamette Valley that did not offer curbside yard debris service. She estimated the cost at $2.95 to $3.50 monthly per residential customer. The rate would be based on the timing of implementation and the participation rate. A survey of residential customers indicated that 45 percent were willing to pay a $3 per month charge; 39 percent were not, and the remainder were undecided. Ms. Young said that yard debris collection may cause some residents to stop composting. The bi- weekly collection may help stem the amount of material diverted from composting. Other customers who compost all materials on site may be unhappy being charged for a service they do not use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Ms. Young said that the current program was not working, and staff believed if another program were not implemented, the current program should be discontinued while composting education efforts continue. She requested further direction from the council. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Young said that the cost of the service would be added to residents' monthly bills. Staff had not contemplated an exemption, although many communities, such as Gresham, do have exemptions. Mr. Lee determined from Ms. Young that the goal of the recommended change was more public participation in curbside yard debris collection. Ms. Young added that convenience of disposal was another factor. People currently stockpile debris, which creates a fire hazard. Mr. Lee expressed appreciation for the staff report and recomendation. However, he questioned the recommendation's impact on students who would pay for the service without necessarily benefitting from the program. Ms. Young clarified that multi-family complexes would not be included in the program. She said that staff could examine some exemption options, such as were offered by other Oregon communities, but that would require additional resources. Mr. Kelly commended the staff work behind the proposal. He asked for a definition of yard debris. Ms. Young said that yard debris included a variety of materials, such as grass clippings and woody debris six to eight inches in diameter. She clarified, in response to a question from Mr. Kelly, that the material collected would not include food waste. Mr. Kelly asked what percentage of the waste stream was food waste. Ms. Young said that food waste made up a large percentage of the waste stream, but it was generally from commercial sources. She added that staff was looking at other ways to address food waste in the commercial sector, including composting and collection. Mr. Kelly asked why staff cited participation rates if it was contemplating universal service. Ms. Young said that there may be residents who choose not to use the service or have little yard debris. The participation rates were cited to help with an estimate of costs, but staff was not sure of those rates. As participation went up, additional equipment would be required to serve more customers. Mr. Kelly asked staff to give thought to possible exemptions. Ms. Taylor asked if preparation standards would be as severe as in the current program. Ms. Young said no, since there would be a container provided by the haulers. Ms. Taylor was concerned about compulsory nature of the program and the additional costs to residents. She pointed out that many people had landscape services that already removed debris from their property, or they had very little landscaping. She believed that the current pick-up schedule was inconvenient, and if a resident missed the deadline the program was almost useless. Aisc, storage of such a large container could be problematic for many residents. Mr. Rayor asked about the impact on the cost of the program if service was offered once a month. Ms. Young said that it would lower the cost but it would also lower the participation rate. She added that long-term storage of some materials, such as fresh grass clippings, was problematic for many residents. Mr. Rayor asked about the potential of a seasonal program. Ms. Young pointed out that haulers would still have costs associated with the required equipment. Mr. Rayor MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. believed that many households would not generate sufficient waste to take advantage of the program if pick-up were as frequent as contemplated. Mr. Meisner thanked Ms. Young for the staff analysis and said he was supportive of a universal charge for universal service. He said that there were costs to society from people owning a property with landscaping, and the council must be realistic about that. However, he shared Mr. Kelly's interest in exemptions and requested more information about the possibility. Mr. Meisner pointed out that different size properties would have different impacts in terms of contribution to the debris waste stream. He asked if all commercial properties would be excluded. Ms. Young said that such properties often have a landscape service that took debris to the Glenwood site or other processing locations to be composted. Ms. Nathanson asked for a chad comparing rates for the service from other communities. Regarding the potential of yard debris as a fire hazard, Ms. Nathanson said that a fire hazard was created by vegetation close to the house and when people did not have a means to dispose of yard debris that vegetation was often not removed. She favored the use of containers over bags. She believed that there were public safety needs that would be addressed by more consistent removal of vegetation. Regarding the issue of costs, Ms. Nathanson asked if there was anything the council could do to reduce the potential costs, such as a franchise system, to avoid multiple haulers in the same neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said that the City would study the issue to determine whether the current system was cost effective, particularly in terms of vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Torrey commended Ms. Young's presentation and said it could serve as a standard for staff. Mr. Torrey suggested that the haulers could charge more each month for a seasonal program. He asked what the costs would be reduced by if 50 percent of the residents participated in the program. He did not think the costs were significant for those who filled up a container each week. Ms. Taylor asked if the only way people could avoid the fee was by stopping garbage pick-up service. Ms. Young said yes, unless exemptions were adopted. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m.