Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/23/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 23, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She apologized for having to leave the meeting early to attend a personal commitment. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Ortiz for a motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the final council action on the University of Oregon’s alley and street vacation requests be scheduled for August 13 instead of September 8. Ms. Ortiz recalled the council’s decision on July 21 to schedule final action for September 8. She had thought about the decision since then and realized she had been uncomfortable with her vote at the time it occurred. She was concerned about the impact of the September 8 date on the University of Oregon’s (UO) ability to move forward with the arena project. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the possibility of including an emergency clause in the ordinance, City Attorney Glenn Klein said any ordinance would take effect in 30 days, and it would require six votes to include an emergency clause. He said the UO had indicated it wanted to start the project by September 30, and the ordinance would not be in effect on September 30. Ms. Ortiz said the UO wished to purchase a piece of land owned by the City but encompassed by UO property. Other issues became involved, bringing politics into the picture. However, that was not what she thought the council should be voting on. She suggested that cooperation between the major institutions in the community could be of mutual benefit and could lead to increased dialogue. She emphasized the importance of jobs for the community and for her constituents, and said she was not willing to threaten the family-wage jobs created by the arena project for even one day. She did not think the council could take the amount of money involved lightly. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged the other issues related to the conditional use permit (CUP). Ms. Bettman determined from City Attorney Klein that the Attorney General had not yet provided advice on the UO’s ability to proceed with site excavation without a building permit. Ms. Bettman concluded that even if the council ramped up the decision date, the UO might not be able to start the project when it wanted. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated that it was the City’s right and authority to negotiate for a vacation of the magnitude involved in the neighborhood in question, where, she maintained, so many vacations had been granted that traffic connectivity and circulation, including bicycle and pedestrian traffic, was an issue. She reminded the council that the single criterion governing the application was whether the vacations benefited the public, not whether the arena benefited the public. For that reason, she had looked for ways for the UO and City to work collaboratively to make the alley vacation in the public’s interest, as opposed to the City realizing only a minimum amount of money. She favored a later decision date, and questioned how the needed collaboration to create the public benefit to justify the vacation could happen in such a short time frame. City Manager Ruiz indicated staff could return to the council by August 13 with a recommendation based on a completed process, including any needed collaboration and negotiations. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the City Manager could have all the details worked out by the August 13 date. She said that date did not give the council the chance to give the manager direction on possible conditions, such as a land exchange to promote north-south connectivity and more definition regarding the UO’s commitment to pedestrian access. City Manager Ruiz said staff could return with findings in regard to the alley vacation and discuss other potential conditions with the UO. Mr. Zelenka opposed the motion. He said that the decision date for the council did not impact the UO schedule “one bit.” He said the UO’s desire to commence work on September 30 was dependent on the Attorney General’s decision, and he believed a September 8 council decision could still accommodate that start date. He said the UO needed to complete the CUP process, which could not conclude until October. He also maintained that the motion “breaks faith” with the neighbors with no real need on the part of the UO. He had asked specifically that the alley vacation coincide with the CUP process and he thought the UO had agreed to that when the public hearing was scheduled. He believed a false sense of urgency was being created by the UO. Mr. Zelenka thought the council needed to be thoughtful and retain the existing date. Mr. Clark said he believed from watching the faces of the UO officials present during the last discussion that they thought the later date would have a detrimental impact on their planning. He determined from City Manager Ruiz that staff believed it could provide the information needed by the council in time for an August 13 decision date. Mr. Clark indicated support for the motion because he wanted to move forward expeditiously. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion because she thought the council needed time to negotiate an arrange- ment that was in the public’s interest. She did not think the manager could demonstrate in such a short time that this was the case. She thought if the vacation was shown to be in the public interest six councilors would be willing to support an emergency clause. She said collaboration “cut two ways.” Mayor Piercy believed the arena would be built and she had an interest in keeping the UO on schedule. She said the council was told on July 21 that the emergency clause required the support of a majority of councilors, but now the council had learned that including such a clause required six votes, which she believed made a difference to the conversation. She hoped the UO and City could work in collaboration as it had just done in regard to the recent Olympic Trials and she looked to the UO to work with the neighbors to resolve the issues of concern to them. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she was going out on a limb somewhat with her motion, but hoped the UO heard the message about collaboration and was receptive to the City when it approached the UO with issues around parking control, the Department of Public Safety, and scholarships for underserved populations. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Zelenka voting no. A. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with River Road Park and Recreation District Acting Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Renee Grube introduced the item, welcoming the staff and board members of the River Road Park and Recreation District to the first joint meeting of the board and council since the district was formed in 1955. She said the City had a collaborative partnership with the district since its inception. The City and district had a formal Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) relationship for 20 years that provided City funding to the district. The IGA was intended to facilitate the use of district facilities by district residents who annexed into the City, and was intended to be a short-term means of ensuring consistent service delivery while the property inside the district annexed to the City. She acknowl- edged that such annexation was unlikely to occur in the near-term. Ms. Grube noted the services provided by the district to district residents, including city residents. She said that no other residents had access to both district and City recreational services. She said the district’s residents had been willing to pay a fairly high tax rate to maintain district services, but in spite of that the district was facing a long-term structural deficit due to rising expenses. The district was drawing down on its reserves and now was facing the potential of service reductions. City and district staff had met several times over the past year and it was clear that the City’s $100,000 contribution was not a long-term solution for either body. The City wished to work with the district to identify a sustainable solution to ensure that services were available at Emerald Park into the future. River Road Park and Recreation District Assistant Superintendent Dale Weigandt introduced district board members Betty Donaldson, Walt Haniuk, Wayne Helikson, Jim Wienecke, and District Superintendent Jim Lockard. Mr. Weigandt expressed pride in the district and its facilities and provided a brief overview of district facilities. He noted the many recreational activities and social services offered through the community center located at Emerald Park. Mr. Weigandt spoke of the balance the district had to maintain between the taxes it assessed to in-district residents and fees for services. Mr. Weigandt commended the district’s partnership with the City of Eugene and the funding from Eugene that helped make it possible. He could not see ending the partnership. He spoke of the impact of the recent economic downtown on district services and facilities, emphasizing the additional patron visits and demand on district services that were created as a result of more people staying at home. Mr. Weigandt invited council members to contact him for a tour of the district’s facilities. He expressed hope for a positive solution to continue district operations. Mr. Lockard observed that he joined the district in 1972 at a time of financial crisis, and would retire in 2010 leaving another crisis unless the district and City could reach an agreement. He reported that the district had finished the last fiscal year with a much reduced contingency fund and would face a similar situation next year. He contended the incremental annexation policies of the City of Eugene had caused many of the district’s MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 3 Work Session financial problems because annexation removed property from the district’s tax rolls, resulting in the highest tax rate for any park district in Oregon, which was $3.0559 cents per $1,000. Mr. Lockard discussed the negative impact on district revenues that arose because of the end of the 20-year agreement between Eugene and the district. He noted the five options presented to the council and reviewed the elements of Option 1, which was reflected in the staff-prepared motion included in the meeting materials, and suggested it was not enough in itself to avoid reductions in district operations. He believed the required reductions would take the life blood out of the district given the choices that would be left to the board of directors. He preferred the options that restored or increased funding and created a window for other decisions that needed to be made. Mr. Lockard acknowledged the political unpopularity of the option of annexation of the area encompassed by the district, but said he believed that was the appropriate long-term approach. Mr. Helikson discussed the board’s understanding that the funding provided through the IGA between Eugene and the district was in lieu of tax payments on property annexed to the City of Eugene. The formula established at the time worked for 20 years. When year 21 was reached, City staff decided that what had worked for 20 years did not work anymore, and rather than negotiate a new amount, told the district to “take it or leave it.” That placed the district in a terrible position. He could not understand why the City would attempt to destroy the finest park in the area because he believed that was the result of its approach. Mr. Helikson said the cause of the district’s funding problem was the City’s incremental annexation program, which had devastated the district’s tax base. The City created the problem, and it was the district’s position that the City should take care of the problem. He suggested that the lack of City attention to the issue was a strategy on the part of “someone, somewhere,” to eliminate the district. He said the district was not seeking to get rich and only sought the amount that allowed it to maintain its existing programs. He thought that was in the best interest of both the district and City. If the district did not receive the money, it would reduce maintenance and services and City residents would pay higher fees to use district facilities. Mr. Helikson said if the City ever assumed responsibility for the district, it was in the City’s interest to ensure the district was well-run and well-cared for. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to district representatives for the presentation and noted her familiarity with the district through her role as the area’s representative in the House. She then left the meeting for a personal obligation. Mr. Pryor assumed the chair. Mr. Zelenka also left the meeting for a personal obligation and indicated he would view the portion of the meeting he was obliged to miss at a later date. Mr. Clark thanked the district’s board and staff. He spoke of his own use of recreational facilities as a youth and stressed their importance to residents, particularly families. He said that funding was a challenge in the current environment faced by both the district and the City, which also was in the position of relying on its reserves. The City faced escalating costs and any changes in its revenue stream would have a dramatic effect. He advocated for creative thinking in this instance. Mr. Clark noted that he had received an e-mail from River Road resident Rob Handy that indicated his belief that 55 percent of district patrons were from the Santa Clara area. He asked if the district had considered attempting to incorporate Santa Clara residents in the district and if those residents were charged non-resident fees. Mr. Lockard confirmed that non-residents were charged an extra fee, but it was about the same as the City’s fees for residents because Santa Clara residents had a choice. He said that the district could not offer a MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 4 Work Session broad recreational program without those residents because of the balance between fees and revenues. Mr. Weigandt said the district had explored expanding into the Santa Clara area but the boundary commission had not supported the proposal. Mr. Clark asked how the elimination of the boundary commission affected that issue. Mr. Lockard pointed out that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) stipulated that the City was the logical provider of such services, although the district disagreed with that. Mr. Clark thought the Metro Plan, more than annexation policy, was the driver of the challenge facing the City and district. Ms. Ortiz thanked the representatives of the district. She commended Emerald Park and noted her own family’s use of its facilities. She concurred with Mr. Helkison’s remarks and said the City and district needed to decide where they were heading and what the end product was. She said the City was already struggling to provide recreation and parks services for residents within its tax base. She invited more input into an ultimate solution. She was seeking an equitable solution because not all parts of the community received the same services, depending on their location. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the meeting was the beginning of a longer conversation and hoped that no one came to that discussion with a predisposition of where the discussion would go. Ms. Solomon thought Mr. Helikson’s remarks “cut to the chase” as she believed annexation would solve many of the problems facing the City and district. She was not happy with the City’s current annexation policies because she believed they needed to be more aggressive. However, she was unsure that the City could afford to provide the programs being offered by the district. She thought the $100,000 investment the City made was a good value given that the district was serving a large portion of the community. She was somewhat torn as how to proceed and was unclear as to how the discussion now differed from the discussion that led to the IGA. Mr. Helikson said that the IGA was put into place because the Boundary Commission wanted some arrange- ment between the two parties before it started approving annexations. He did not think anything had changed, and if the City had continued to honor the IGA, the meeting would not have happened. He thought the IGA had worked out well until the City unilaterally decided the amount was $100,000. He reminded the council of the circumstances in regard to sewers that existed at the time, leading to the requirement for any development to annex. Mr. Haniuk pointed out the IGA was a collaborative agreement but the City had been the party that initiated it because of what was expected to happen in regard to annexation over the next 20 years. Now people were only annexing for the purpose of development. The district had many areas that were subsequently annexed into Eugene, eliminating revenue to the district. In regard to the concept that this was the beginning of a longer conversation, Mr. Haniuk pointed out that the district could not wait for much longer before it would have to reduce services. Ms. Solomon said that if the City were to absorb the district in the future, she thought it would be better to absorb a healthy district rather than allowing the district to “die slowly on the vine” and then inherit something that required a huge infusion of cash. Mr. Helikson did not think the City could operate the district as frugally as it was operated now because the two entities did not have the same cost basis. Speaking to the implication in the meeting materials that the district’s services were so good they would have to be brought down to the City’s level, Mr. Helikson said that the district and City could arrange to make the park accessible to all residents with the appropriate funding. He did not think there was a reason to equalize MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 5 Work Session services to make them all equally bad. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Helikson about equalizing services by making them equally bad. Ms. Taylor noted her long-held belief that the City’s piecemeal annexation policy was mistaken. She said it appeared to her that the district was offering services at a level the City used to maintain. She recalled that the council had made reductions to the City’s recreation programs during the Ballot Measure 47/50 process that she continued to regret. While she did not want to bring services down, she questioned if the City could continue to afford to help fund the district’s programs. She acknowledged a need to consider the original IGA as well. Ms. Taylor was unsure of her final position on the subject. Mr. Helikson thought the amount determined through the IGA had been fair and questioned why it was no longer considered fair. He did not think the City was supporting district programs; rather, it was paying the district a small amount of money for the taxes it had taken away through incremental annexation. He said that $200,000 meant a lot more to the district than it did to Eugene. Ms. Taylor did not disagree. Ms. Bettman said that when properties in the district were annexed to Eugene, residents were paying for a broad range of services, and she maintained that district residents received services from the City at a reduced rate because they were not paying City taxes. She thought it important to look at the big picture. Ms. Bettman said the district was providing excellent services but needed a significant infusion of cash to do so. She questioned whether the City could provide the same services for the same amount of money. She also wanted to know what role the County played given that district residents were also County residents. Mr. Helikson said that the district had not approached the County. He said the district was supporting its own programs, and the City was paying the district for what it had taken away, and at what he considered a very low level. Mr. Lockard did not see how the County could help the district given its current financial situation. Central Services Director Jim Carlson said that the IGA was signed with the belief that annexation would occur over a 20-year period, and it was clear now that was not going to happen. There was no reason for a resident to choose annexation because they were getting the services they wanted without annexation. He pointed out that one major factor that had changed since the initial IGA was the passage of Ballot Measure 47/50, which had substantially impacted the annual increase in property taxes to the district. Those measures created a “sea change” in the way that all local governments were funded, including the City, which suffered from the same structural imbalance facing the district. Part of that was due to annexation, but much was due to Ballot Measures 47/50. Mr. Lockard pointed out that the City continued to receive the three percent increase in property taxes, which the district did not. Mr. Pryor said that instead of looking at managing a transition, the council was looking at the potential that the annexation situation in River Road could continue indefinitely. He suggested the community needed to consider at some point whether that was financially feasible given escalating costs. He asked if district representatives could envision the district being in place in 20 years, or would the question of financial feasibility prevent that. He believed staff had followed the council’s direction in regard to the funds given the district but the council could revise that decision, and he was supportive of continued funding; the question was what amount, and for how long. Mr. Pryor suggested that required a joint discussion. He supported continuing the funding while that discussion occurred in the amount of $100,000. He invited input on the question of the length of time funding would be provided. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Helikson agreed a long-term discussion was necessary, but the board would appreciate the larger contribution with the commitment to work with the City on a long-term arrangement. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to follow the cur- rent direction for a one-time payment of $100,000 to the district in the FY09 Budget and to develop a work plan and timeline to explore a variety of partnership options between the dis- trict and the City that identifies a long-term sustainable strategy for the viable operation of the district until annexation occurs. Mr. Clark concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He said if the City ever acquired the district, it was important it be in the best possible shape. He recognized the district’s importance to the residents he represented in Santa Clara. He thought it would be difficult for the City to duplicate the level of service now provided for the amount expended. Mr. Clark appreciated the good job the district did and said the issues for him came down to equity and priorities. He thought it logical the district would want to address the fact that many Santa Clara residents used the facility but did not live in the district, but acknowledged the political difficulty that might present. He thought there was an equity issue involved. He suggested the demise of the Boundary Commission might present new opportunities in that regard. Mr. Helikson believed it would be self-defeating to annex Santa Clara if the City continued its piecemeal annexation program; the problem would last “forever.” Mr. Clark said that the City needed to consider both the revenue side of the picture as well as the increase in demand experienced by the district in regard to services provided to Santa Clara. The City was not in the position to provide the same excellent service to its residents as the district provided, and there was an equity issue in that regard as well as a priority issue that he continued to struggle with. Mr. Helikson indicated the district would be willing to waive out-of-district fees for City residents if an equitable arrangement with the City could be reached. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the change in funding, Mr. Carlson attributed it to the City’s financial situation at the time. He said the City was cutting its recreation programs, and the question then became how the City could cut its own programs without reducing its contribution to the park district. He estimated the cost of restoring the amount at about $140,000. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Ortiz about the City’s budget, Mr. Carlson said the City used reserves to balance the budget in the last two years, and proposed to do so again this year. That eliminated the City’s Reserve for Revenue Shortfall going into fiscal year 2010. He said that restoring the contract would require the City to make service reductions or find revenue increases. Ms. Ortiz wished the City could write the district a check to make it whole and continue its services. Speaking to the issue of the County, she pointed out that the County had not always been in crisis and given that the district’s constituents were largely County residents, she wondered why the board had not held the County’s “feet to the fire” to a greater degree. Mr. Helikson said the district never seemed to be in crisis when the County had money. Ms. Bettman noted the County’s lack of a systems development charge for parks. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said that life was full of inequities, and she frequently saw people that had access to much more than other people, which was her reason for being on the council. She was not asking the district to lower its standards; she thought there could be a middle ground in that regard. Ms. Ortiz suggested a parks district for the entire community might be an appropriate solution. Mr. Weigandt noted the precedent that existed in Springfield in regard to the Willamalane Parks and District. He emphasized that the district was under scrutiny by its residents and that was one of the reasons its programs were so good. He hoped the district was not penalized because of its quality programming. Speaking to the issue of the County funding situation, Mr. Carlson pointed out that the residents of the district and the City were all County residents. He recalled that the County was also in a fiscal crisis in 1983, which was when it got out of the business of providing urban parks altogether. He suggested there would be no equity in the County funding parks services to River Road residents but to no other County residents. Ms. Bettman said the City had traditionally taken responsibility for development in the urban transition area, but that might not happen in the future; simply because the County was not historically involved did not mean it would not be involved in the future. She pointed out that systems development charges, which were intended for new infrastructure, also had a reimbursable component. The County could have availed itself of funding sources but it had chosen not to, and she thought the County deserved to be pressured as much as the City. Speaking to the suggestion of a parks district, Ms. Bettman said that was not as simple as it seemed. She said that it resulted in redundancy of staff and operations and had the effect of raising taxes and creating compression. She supported the motion. Mr. Clark supported the motion and indicated he was seeking a long-term, creative solution and thought the motion gave the two parties time to achieve that. He suggested the district consider expanding its boundaries to account for residents who were enjoying its services but were not district residents. Until that occurred, he was challenged by the concept of the City stepping in to fill the funding void on a permanent basis. Responding to a question from Mr. Helikson, Mr. Pryor indicated the City could provide the district with information about its rate per thousand for the cost of parks. Mr. Pryor supported the motion as the beginning of the needed conversation. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Pryor adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 9 Work Session