Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/06/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall December 6, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor. DINNER WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL Mayor James D. Torrey called the work session of the City Council to order. A. Work Session: Construction Permit Fund Status Paul Farmer, Planning and Development Department Director, provided introductory remarks. He said that Fund 151, the Construction Permit Fund, supported not only permit review and inspection staff but loaned staff from the Fire and Public Works departments as well. The fund was mandated to be 100 percent fee supported in past years; staff had recently indicated to the Budget Committee it did not think that the approach was sustainable. Mr. Farmer noted that Seattle had undertaken a similar experiment and attempted to collect 95 percent of costs, but had abandoned that and gone to a 80-20 cost-share split, which was the formula Eugene had employed prior to the passage of ballot measures 47/50. He noted reductions in the personnel supported by the fund and reductions in other areas, such as supplies and fleet. He anticipated the budget review would include discussion of ways to fix the fund in the coming years. Mr. Farmer acknowledged the contributions of Marsha Miller, Keli Osbom, Scott Luell, and Shelly Warren of the Planning and Development Department to the presentation Ms. Osborn, Planning and Development Department, noted that staff was not requesting any council action at this point, but wished to ensure the council was up to date on the status of the fund. She provided the council with a presentation on the history of the fund. She described the current status of the fund, expanding on Mr. Farmer's earlier remarks about reductions in personnel and noting continuous improvement measures. Ms. Osborn reviewed some possible options for making up the shortfall projected in revenues at this point, which included fee increases, service reductions, and a new funding source. She noted the staff proposal to process a request for State fee increases, establish a department advisory committee to examine some of the issues related to the fund, and direct a one-time infusion from the General Fund to Fund 151 to secure the fund reserve through 2000. Ms. Osborn reviewed a time line associated with the staff proposal. Mr. Farr asked if the department had done any studies determining the average person hours spent reviewing a building permit for a single-family house. Ms. Osbom said staff had that information although she was unsure how useful it was. She said it was somewhat dated. Mr. Farr suggested that the information would benefit the community by informing it how its charges compared to other communities. He said that there was a perception that the City spent too many hours per permit. Ms. Osborn said that staff could do further analysis. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. She said that making comparisons between communities could be difficult because the comparison was not always an "apples to apples" comparison given the differences in regulations between communities. Mr. Meisner was unsure about the need for a new department advisory committee given the work already done. Regarding the proposal for interim funding, he said that would be a challenge. Mr. Meisner said that the information provided to the council did not include a comparison of total program costs between communities, and he would be interested in that information. Were other communities facing such shortfalls, and what did Eugene do differently from those communities? He said that he would want that information before making a final decision on the staff proposal. Mr. Kelly was generally supportive of the staff proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the fees captured for unfunded development assistance, Ms. Osborn concurred that there were land use fees associated with site review and planned unit developments, but the permit fees were insufficient to cover the costs of referral to the appropriate staff. She said that there may be room in that fee structure to seek more revenues. Mr. Kelly asked if there were a way to recover the costs of planning services through the systems development charge. Ms. Osbom said no. Mr. Kelly supported the proposed department advisory committee if the time line developed by staff could be maintained. Mr. Kelly indicated willingness to consider an 80-20 split in recognition of the community benefit provided by Construction Permit Services. Mr. Rayor believed the staff proposal was generally taking the right approach. He asked for more information about the use to which the reserve fund could be put, and whether the council could avoid directing General Fund money to the service. Mr. Farmer noted the negative impact of the rate of growth on the reserve fund and indicated he believed the funding was essential to avoid the fund going into the red. He said it was not a long-term fix, but would buy the City some time to develop a permanent solution. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson said that the fund had some reserves above those representing services already paid for, but the use of those dollars were restricted by council policy regarding the amount of the fund. Ms. Osbom said that when building activity for large commercial and industrial projects was strong, the City had been able to build up some reserves, but the department had been spending those reserves on current costs. Ms. Nathanson asked if it continued to be true that large commercial and industrial projects to some degree subsidized smaller scale projects. Ms. Osborn said yes, to some degree; part of the reason was because State fees were based on tables adopted by the State, and the City was constrained for what it could charge for different projects. The fees were not always directly related to the costs of reviewing the project. Ms. Nathanson said it appeared that 100 percent cost recovery may not be feasible or appropriate. She suggested that the council needed to take a step back and ask what the purpose of all the permits the City issued was: were permits for the benefit for the person getting the permit, the community at large, or the person who may purchase or occupy a dwelling later? She said that many regulations were compelled by MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. safety concerns or community values, and at some point the council may need to determine the benefitting party when considering fee levels. Ms. Nathanson said that, if permits cost too much, was there evidence that people would commence construction with a permit? Ms. Osborn said that the City had anecdotal evidence to that effect. Mr. Farmer believed that people would work without a permit, adding it was difficult to quantify precisely. As staff projected fee increases, the calculation included an increase in work without permits and some revenue loss. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the City needed to reexamine those services for which it was not currently compensated. Mr. Pap~ asked if better submittals from architects and engineers would cut down on review time. Ms. Osborn said yes, although the City had succeeded enormously in improving the quality of submittals over the last three years, which had created service efficiencies. In addition, staff had changed how it handled applications at intake, and was much stricter about what was accepted, which helped to reduce turnaround time and follow-up requests for supplemental information. Mr. Pap~ asked if turnaround time was accelerated by better submittals. Ms. Osborn said yes. Mr. Farmer noted that inspectors reported they spent more time on job sites attempting to ensure that approved plans were actually being implemented; contractors were having an increasingly difficult time getting qualified employees, which resulted in more in-the-field training on the part of inspectors. Staff had discussed doing some targeted training with specific groups of applicants. Mr. Farmer added that the development of more difficult sites impacted by wetlands, streams, and slopes also made it more difficult for submitted plans to be accurate. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Osborn stated that most of the permit fees charged by the City were within State guidelines, and they tended to be higher for commercial development. Ms. Taylor asked if it would save money if the City extended the application turnaround time. Ms. Osborn said she supposed so; if the City wanted to slow its response time, it could probably reduce the service and number of staff to cut costs, but that approach had tradeoffs; one tradeoff was that people might bypass the permit process. Ms. Taylor suggested that such instances would be largely confined to additions or interior modifications. Ms. Osborn agreed, but said that such work also could present safety problems. Mr. Fart said that one of the most important considerations in considering the topic was the amount of money it cost a family to get into a new house, and anytime the City Council considered regulation that increased the cost of a residence it needed to determine whether it was doing the right thing. He said that the information provided by staff indicated that Eugene already had the highest permitting fees for a single-family dwelling outside the Portland area. Mr. Fart said that the council needed to consider whether the City was regulating construction in the most efficient manner. He conceded that most regulations were instituted for community livability, but each regulation had the potential to overlap the regulations imposed by another agency, making staf?s job more difficult and complex. Mr. Fart wanted to analyze the City's regulations to determine why its permit fees were higher than those in other communities. He questioned whether the City could afford to push its fees higher than they currently were. Regarding the potential of instituting delays in application turnaround times, Mr. Fart suggested that could add to the cost of housing as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Responding to Mr. Fart's remarks, Mr. Meisner said that while it was true that Eugene's permitting fees were higher than, for example, Salem's, its SDCs were considerably lower. When permit fees and SDCs were added together, Eugene had the lowest development costs in Oregon. Mr. Meisner requested comparative data regarding the services offered by Eugene and other communities. He said that before the City reduced services, he wanted to ensure those reductions occurred comparatively and in a manner than preserved efficiency. Regarding the question of "who benefits," Mr. Meisner agreed it was a good question but suggested it was often used by some in the development community as an argument for transferring costs they would otherwise have to pay to the general population. He wanted to analyze the costs of implementing community values, such as opposition to "big box" retail stores, through regulation, before further discussion of who benefitted and who paid for those costs. At the request of Mr. Rayor, Ms. Osborn clarified the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) counts provided by staff, noting that the four positions added for the Hyundai project were vacant positions deauthorized and not included in the fiscal year 2000 count. The City had added 1.5 FTE in the Public Works element of the service, which showed up in the fiscal year 1999 count, creating a "blip" in the FTE count. She explained that the City had been operating with a shortage of personnel in that area. Mr. Farmer said that the competitive job market had exacerbated the situation. Mr. Lee appreciated the presentation. He endorsed early council action to avoid a funding shortfall in the future. He questioned whether the staff work involved was seasonal, and if positions could be backfilled when demand was high. Mr. Farmer said that the City did not see much seasonal variation in construction activity, particularly in the commercial construction field. Ms. Osborn said that one constraint to implementing Mr. Lee's suggestion was the need for staff certifications for certain specialties. Mr. Pap~ asked if all three departments involved in the service issued different permits. Ms. Osborn said that the building permits were issued by the Building Official, but reviews were performed by staff from three different departments. Mr. Pap~ asked if turnaround times would be reduced if staff was in the same department. Ms. Osborn said that the City looked at that issue in the past and could look at it again. She noted that previously, management had been concerned about the potential loss of technical continuity from the technical experts in the home departments. Mr. Pap~ asked if consolidating staff in one department could save costs. Ms. Osborn said it was possible. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Osborn confirmed that Eugene's average SDC costs did not include the water SDC charged by Eugene Water & Electric Board. She did not know if the figures provided by Wilsonville or Salem included a water SDC, and indicated staff would find out the answer to Mr. Farr's question. B.Work Session: Federal Courthouse/City Hall Alternatives MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that it held two work sessions on the topic. He called the council's attention to the policy issues listed in the meeting packet. The motions included in the meeting packet were draft in nature and could be amended by the council as desired. Mr. Torrey asked councilors to comment on the issue before them before a motion was placed on the floor. Ms. Nathanson said that her position on the issue continued to be the same: the federal purchase of the City Hall site could solve the problem of ensuring the new courthouse was not located in an inappropriate location, as well as address the problems of the inadequacy of the existing city hall and ensure the safety of City Hall employees and the citizens who depended on emergency services delivered out of City Hall. Although there was uncertainty about the amount of money the federal government would pay for the site, Ms. Nathanson believed the City would receive more for the site from the federal government than from a private party. She did not think the council could afford to lose advantage of the opportunity. She believed if the City turned its back on the amount offered and accepted a smaller amount later, it would be turning its back on several million additional dollars. She said that the money was not enough, but it was more than she thought the City would receive in the future. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the considerable work to be done to relocate City offices to another location or locations. Mr. Lee asked questions about timing. Mr. Johnson said that the timing of the process was "up in the air." He did not know how long negotiations for the City Hall site would take, and noted that the General Services Administration (GSA) had experienced problems with its appraisal of the site and was requesting more work from its appraisers. Mr. Johnson said that other unknowns included the timing of the budget process and what Congress would do, which could elongate the process. It was necessary for GSA to have a site before it could return to Congress for a construction allocation. Mr. Lee did not think that the council wanted as a legacy an enormous building in the 5th Street District. He acknowledged the time and effort it would take to relocate City offices, but said the council should give the manager authority to negotiate, recognizing it could change its mind and that the final authority rested with the council. Mr. Rayor noted the extremely large difference in cost between building a new City Hall and retrofitting the existing City Hall. He said that the council was proposing to move ahead without a public process, and that bothered him. He was also disturbed by the fact that the council was considering using a property tax bond to underwrite the costs of replacing City Hall. Mr. Rayor said that the proposal required the City to find between $9 million and $19 million in the budget, leaving the City with no reserves to address unforeseen conditions. Regarding the impact of the building on downtown, Mr. Rayor pointed out that another building could be located on the 6th Avenue site at the same scale as the federal courthouse and with the same loss of parking, and there was nothing now in the City Code that precluded such a structure. He believed that the current City Hall should be retained as general City office buildings. He did not think City representatives had to go to Washington to learn more about the building's height and scale as that information was available through the Environmental Assessment. Mr. Kelly suggested that the process had brought many facility needs to the forefront of the council's discussions that were not there before, as well as discussion about urban design, and regardless of the outcome of the process he wanted to see those issues on the council's agenda in the new year. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly suggested that the immediate policy question before the council was whether to authorize the manager to negotiate with the GSA. Other policy questions needed to go through a broader public process. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson and disagreed with Mr. Rayor regarding the urban design impact of the proposed federal courthouse. He could not envision the building as designed without thinking about the negative impact the building would have on the one part of downtown that was thriving. Mr. Kelly did not want to present the voters with a ballot measure that, if turned down, would result in the Police Department being relocated to double-wide mobile homes at the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site. He wanted to ensure that any sale of City Hall was contingent upon the successful passage of a May ballot. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Kelly that the process brought out some facility and urban design issues that needed to be addressed. He thanked the Congressional delegation for its support of Eugene and the desire of the citizens. He indicated he would support a motion directing the manager to enter into negotiations, pointing out that nothing was final and a public process would soon be initiated that would inform the council's decision. Regarding keeping the current facility, he said that Mr. Rayor made some good points, but he agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the sale would realize money the City did not have now, and would preclude having to spend money on a seismic retrofit. He did not think the City would get a better deal than it was being offered now. Ms. Taylor said it was a terrible mistake to do something so large as sell City Hall without a public process. She said that the people should get a chance to speak before the council made a decision. She did not think the City could back out of a decision to sell. She said that the federal courthouse proposal did not make City Hall unsafe or City facilities inadequate; those conditions already existed. Ms. Taylor said the council was allowing the federal government to push it into something it was not prepared to do. She called for more public involvement and more time. She suggested that neither site under consideration for the federal courthouse was adequate, and said that the courthouse should be on the edge of downtown. Ms. Taylor asked why the City did not merely move departments to other locations in stages if there was money available. She advocated spending money for a seismic upgrade of City Hall if that was necessary. Mr. Pap~ concurred with the comments made by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Kelly. He also agreed with Mr. Kelly that the process highlighted the City's many facility needs. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that those needs existed before, but the citizens were largely unaware of them. He said that the council should let the public know it was facing a deadline and a decision that it must begin to work on immediately. He did not agree with Mr. Rayor that funding should be spent on a seismic upgrade as he considered it a waste of money. He advocated that the motion in the packet be reworded by revising the reference to "purchase price offer" to "purchase offer." Mr. Meisner said he did not run for office to build a new city hall and was not happy about the way the process transpired. Regarding the lack of public process, he said that might be true in the most formalistic sense, but while there had been very little formal public process, there had been considerable public input to councilors as individuals. He had personally received hundreds of e-mail and telephone calls, although he acknowledged there was no unanimity of opinion among them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner said that the 5th Street District site on 6th Avenue was unacceptable as the location for the courthouse for reasons of scale, design, and parking loss. He said that unless the City was willing to negotiate, the GSA was going to take the 6th Avenue site. He was not optimistic that the GSA would build a building that the community liked given its tepid response to the North End Scoping Group's recommendations. Mr. Meisner supported authorizing the City Manager to negotiate with the GSA. He said that those negotiations did not obligate the City to sell City Hall. Mr. Meisner added he would actively oppose a property tax measure that moved the police from downtown. Mr. Torrey said that the City Council had already gone through a considerable process regarding the subject. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that public input did not have to occur through a formal public hearing. He did not think that the council was "holding a gun to anyone's head" if it chose to ask the voters to approve a fire station or police station bond measure. The City had the ability to relocate those facilities off-site. Regarding the cost, he pointed out that no one knew the cost. He said that the numbers had been inaccurately reported by the media in Eugene. Mr. Torrey said that the council could accept or reject any offer from the GSA, and he believed that considering an offer was the responsible thing to do. He said that councilors may not have known when they were elected that it would face this issue, but he believed that the community elected its councilors to make such unexpected decisions. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate the sale of City Hall with GSA and bring a purchase offer back to the council for final approval. Ms. Nathanson said that she had experienced a great deal of uncertainty about the process and the details involved in the process but had a great deal of certainty about the desired outcome. She thought there was time to work out the details; while she was still uncomfortable about the process, she still believed it was wrong to put the federal courthouse on the 6th Avenue site, and she did not want to put more money into the existing City Hall. She said that she would oppose putting money into a building that did not result in expanded services to citizens. Ms. Nathanson said that the details that needed to be resolved were like a three- dimensional jigsaw puzzle for which the council lacked pieces. She said that the council needed to look to the future and provide the citizens with a city hall they could use. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson confirmed that, without pressure, the GSA would likely place the building on the 6th Avenue site. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Taylor and Mr. Rayor to help him understand how they would address that scenario; he said that it was not an option that the courthouse not be built. He believed either the council must provide an option for an alternative site, or see the building constructed on 6th Avenue. Mr. Lee questioned the impact on service delivery if the voters failed to support a measure and the council had to go to its back-up plan. Mr. Johnson said it was hard to estimate the impacts. It would depend on the services involved. However, regardless of physical location, Mr. Johnson said that staff would provide high- quality services. Responding to Mr. Lee's question, Mr. Rayor said that the locations under consideration were not far from each other and had the same basic physical relationship to the existing federal courthouse. He did not know MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. why the GSA's plans would detract from 5th Street Market District, and pointed out the market would additionally benefit from the business of federal employees. He said that the market built over existing parking to accommodate the Nike store, and now market representatives were "crying foul" over the anticipated loss of parking. Mr. Rayor said that the current City Hall was a classic, traditional City Hall. He agreed that the police and fire functions should be relocated, but not until after the passage of a successful bond measure. He said that the calls he received were in opposition to a bond measure. He also pointed out that the bond measure would be competing with other measures regarding to public safety. Mr. Rayor disagreed with Mr. Torrey regarding the published cost estimates, saying he believed that the cost figures reported in The Register-Cmard and Eugene Weekly were accurate. He said that the issue before the council was the most difficult he had faced, and he fell back on his personal experience in resolving it: he waited until he had money before he spent it. Mr. Kelly said the challenge to the council was that a temporary solution, such as trailers for the police, often become permanent or semi-permanent. He said that independent of the discussion, he wanted to ensure the police had adequate quarters. Regarding the level of service, Mr. Kelly asked for confirmation that moving the fire station from downtown would result in a increase in response times. Mr. Johnson said yes, but pointed out that the answer also depended on the time of the response. He said he had asked the acting fire chiefs to locate alternative space for the hook and ladder truck in downtown. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by adding a sentence that read "such sale of city hall shall be contingent on the passage of a bond measure for replacement public safety facilities at the May 2000 election." Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson indicated he did not think the GSA would want to wait six months, but that wait might happen anyway, given the length of time federal processes took. Mr. Torrey said that Mr. Pearson of the GSA strongly indicated he wanted the council's decision by December 7. Mr. Kelly believed it was impossible to predict in advance how the GSA would respond. He also pointed out that Mr. Pearson was not the head of the GSA, and that the GSA was strongly influenced by the wishes of the Oregon congressional delegation. Mr. Pap6 said that the safety and security of the federal courthouse was also a concern of his. He did not want to lose the federal courthouse functions to another community because the council attempted to impose conditions on the GSA. Mr. Fart did not think the GSA would negotiate under the terms suggested by Mr. Kelly and indicated his intent to oppose the amendment. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the amendment achieved the objectives of the council, and suggested that such a delay raised a different set of "what ifs." MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner said that the amendment was a condition of sale and he was inclined to support it. He said that there was a lack of public understanding about the problem and a need for public education, but he agreed with Ms. Nathanson that this was probably the only time the City would get market value for the building. He said that new facilities were required, no matter what. He did not want the building at 5th Street. Ms. Taylor said she would support the amendment because it improved the original motion. She said that if the citizens voted against a measure, they would be making a statement. She believed the council could not make decisions about how to spend the public's money without asking it. She noted that the library was only temporarily funded, and the City would have to seek more money for the library within the next few years. She believed it was necessary for voter confidence that they have control over their money. Mr. Johnson believed that the GSA was unlikely to support a delay because they would lose its appropriation for the current fiscal year. Mr. Rayor said he would support the amendment because it improved the motion. He said that the City had never funded a major project without public input. Mr. Torrey pointed out that the City was not asking the voters for a new City Hall. He said that the City was considering asking the citizens for funding for new police and fire facilities. He said that the City was acting in response to the actions of the GSA. He pointed out that the City Council could meet in the new library. He said that the City got additional time from the GSA and might get additional time. He did not think the GSA would give the City until May. He said that if the vote on the motion was a tie, he would vote to defeat the amendment. Mr. Kelly did not believe the council would know any more on Wednesday than it did today. He said that the motion was intended to establish a trusting relationship with the voters. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly voting yes; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Lee voting no. Ms. Nathanson said she voted for the motion to show majority support for the proposal. She hoped that a clear majority would support the main motion; if not, she would ask to reconsider the previous vote as a member of the prevailing side. Mr. Pap~ believed that the vote had moved the courthouse to the 6th Avenue site. Mr. Lee said that the council could ask GSA if it was willing to delay, as he previously suggested. Mr. Lee moved to request the City Manager to take the motion to the GSA for feedback on Wednesday, December 8. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to postpone action on the motion to December 8, 1999. The motion to postpone passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. Kelly voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m. The council agreed to direct Mr. Johnson to ask the GSA about the impact of the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m.