Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/11/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 11, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council work session. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported that the Broadway Development Advisory Committee (BDAC) members had been appointed and the first meeting was scheduled at the end of the month. She wished to thank all of the people who were willing to serve on the committee. She related that the Cultural Policy Review process was wrapping up and the final report would soon be before the council. She said the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs had begun its work as well. She noted that Ms. Ortiz was a part of the committee. Mayor Piercy shared that she had participated in a diversity training session entitled Forced Journeys. Mayor Piercy stated that Assistant City Manager Angel Jones had been named pro tem City Manager until a new City Manager was hired. Mayor Piercy said she had represented the City of Eugene in the Portland Rose Parade on June 9. Continuing, Mayor Piercy reported that she had been part of a “Global Warming Teach-In” at the University of Oregon during the previous week. She invited everyone who was listening to take the Mayor’s Climate Challenge at sustaineugene.com. Mr. Pryor stated that the Human Services Commission (HSC) had adopted its budget. He said because of the Secure Rural Schools money the County had been able to hold the Human Services Department harmless. He noted that some cuts were made, but they were insignificant compared to early budgetary projections. He thought the City of Eugene might have to come in with some supplemental budgets later in the year as things transpired. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor reported that the West Eugene Collaborative, the group working on transportation in West Eugene, had broken into two subgroups working on the issues. He said he was serving on the group on the Lane Transit District and the City and learning more about those particular arrangements with regard to the West 11 Avenue corridor and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and transportation alternatives to try to get a feel for what the opportunities were and the kind of recommendations that would work within the framework that had already been adopted by the public bodies. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum on the police officer patrol of the parks. She had heard that the resources had been pulled for the bicycle patrols that served Monroe Park, Scobert Park, and the river area and had been focused on downtown. City Manager Taylor said the program in place had not changed. He indicated that he would have Police Chief Bob Lehner provide her with a memorandum. Mr. Poling did not have anything to report. He noted that he had a Police Commission meeting coming up on June 14 and a Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission meeting coming up as well. He added that he had missed the meeting of the EmX Steering Committee the previous week as he had been out of town. Ms. Solomon wished to applaud the success of the We are Bethel Celebration, held the previous weekend at Peterson Barn. She said it had been a beautiful day and the celebration was well-attended. Mr. Clark reported that he had attended the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) meeting held on June 7. He related that they had tried to identify an appropriate place for a community park. He appreci- ated the information provided by Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter and John ????. Mr. Zelenka related that he had attended the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC). He showed a waterproof Tyvex card that had been passed out to MWC members explaining which fish a person could keep and which should be released. Mr. Zelenka commended the Mayor for her selection of the membership of the BDAC. He felt the committee would do well. He wished to thank the committee members in advance for all of the work ahead of them. Mr. Zelenka voiced his support for the Police Auditor. He said while he had “utmost respect” for the rank and file and leadership of the police department he had been disappointed with the recent editorials written by the representatives of the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA). He opined the union representatives were exercising “delay tactics” and were “going out of their way to avoid accountability.” Mr. Zelenka wished to welcome the new Sustainability Manager to the City. Continuing, Mr. Zelenka related that he had participated in his first “one-on-one” with the Mayor at the PC Market of Choice on Franklin Boulevard. He thought there should be better ways to communicate with constituents; he thought the one-on-one sessions were a great way to do so. Mr. Zelenka expressed disappointment that the Oregon Petroleum Association had begun collecting signatures to repeal the gasoline tax. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz echoed Ms. Solomon’s comments about the We are Bethel Celebration. She had enjoyed the celebration. She related that the celebration had begun with a grant through the Weed and Seed project. She said there had been a lot of children in attendance and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. Ms. Ortiz shared her excitement about the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs. She reported that at the last meeting the history of the work to remedy and prevent homelessness had been shared. She said one member had been asked to write down his oral history so that it could be saved. Ms. Ortiz related that she had attended a gathering at the Red Cross office to discuss the pollution from the railroad yards. She indicated that she would bring this forward as a potential subject of a work session as it was a community issue for those neighborhoods that were affected. Ms. Ortiz said she was glad the HSC budget had passed but she had some concern about the money that was “left over” that went to the County General Reserve Fund. Mr. Pryor clarified that it did not go into the County General Reserve, rather it had been placed in the HSC Reserve Fund. Ms. Ortiz did not believe the money had been spent in the way the City’s Budget Committee had intended. Mayor Piercy was reminded that she had attended the We are Bethel Celebration, the Education Center Meeting, and Bike Day which was co-sponsored by the Science Factory. City Manager Taylor reported that he had received the draft ballot title for the referendum on the gasoline tax. He said it would not be known if there would be enough signatures to place it on the ballot until June 29. City Manager Taylor related that he had attended the Prefontaine Classic and had been impressed by the athletes. He said the second the event concluded the work began to renovate Hayward Field in preparation for the 2008 Olympic Trials. Ms. Bettman asked if there was time to challenge the language of the draft ballot title. City Attorney Jerry Lidz replied that a challenge could be made within five days. Ms. Bettman requested copies of the ballot. Mr. Zelenka asked if the item could be placed on the November ballot. City Manager Taylor replied that he was not certain. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, he affirmed that the balloting process would cost the City approximately $100,000. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Manufactured Dwelling Park Regulations City Manager Taylor stated that the Housing Policy Board (HPB) had been wrestling with the recommenda- tions. He asked Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division, Richie Weinman, to speak about it. Mr. Weinman explained that the HPB had taken up the issue one year earlier and had appointed a committee. Ms. Solomon had served as chair. The committee membership included John VanLandingham (HPB Chair at the time), a park resident, a park owner, a park manager, and two at-large committee members. He stated that the City of Eugene currently had 34 manufactured home parks with 3,100 spaces. He said Eugene had an ordinance that protected the homeowner/residents of the parks and 18 of the parks, representing approximately 1,200 spaces, were covered by the ordinance. He related that the ordinance had been enacted in 1989 it provided protections for homeowners but it only applied to parks that were in non- conforming uses such as industrial zones or flood plains because there was an anticipation that they would eventually close. He added that it also only applied to special category tenants defined as tenants who were 70 years old and older, disabled, or low income. Mr. Weinman stated that no one anticipated at that time that the parks in residential areas would be closed, but at present the properties were becoming very valuable for redevelopment. He said as a result people who own manufactured homes were concerned because there were not enough spaces to move the homes to. He averred that the ordinance that was recommended for consideration represented a compromise between the different interests on the committee. He explained that it would protect some of the owners and provide them some compensation from the property owner should the park close, but it also recognized that the property owners had the right to sell the property. He summarized the recommended changes to the existing ordinance: ? All parks in the community containing five or more spaces would be covered by the ordinance; ? All home-owning residents in the parks would be covered; ? The park owner must hire a housing counselor to assist residents in moving and relocation; ? Residents are entitled to compensation for their losses – if the home could be moved residents land- lords provide moving costs according to a schedule and if the home could not be moved the landlord the homeowner could either receive payment equal to real market value plus a flat amount for mov- ing based on the federal relocation compensation schedule. He noted that the owner could subtract any state subsidy from the payment to the tenant and the resident would not get full value for their asset. He said the owner might get System Development Charge (SDC) credits if applicable. Mr. Weinman related that the State was “hotly debating” bills that would provide statewide protections. He said the big sticking point at this juncture was the preemption clause, which would prevent local jurisdic- tions from passing their own ordinances. He stated that it had passed out of committee with a compromise that included a six-month preemption zone so that a local jurisdiction would have six months to prepare and pass an ordinance before the law would go into effect. Ms. Solomon declared that the process had been respectful with very different opinions at the table and that it had truly resulted in a compromise. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the work that had gone into the recommendations. She asked how many parks contained less than five spaces. Mr. Weinman replied that he was uncertain whether the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 4 Work Session information was available given that they were not classified by the State as a manufactured home park. Ms. Jennings noted there were four parks in the City of Eugene that had four spaces. Ms. Bettman surmised that 16 people would be affected by a park closure with no recourse. She said it seemed there was no provision for residents to weigh in on the decision-making leading up to a park closure. Mr. Weinman responded that there was a state law that governed this and under that law the owner had a choice between giving a 180-day notice or a 365-day notice to park tenants. Ms. Bettman asserted that park residents would not have the opportunity to weigh in on the land use issues surrounding a change in use for the manufactured home park. Mr. Weinman explained that the City did not make a decision for the park owner; the park owner could close the park whether the City said yes or no. Ms. Bettman averred that the City issued the permit. Mr. Weinman offered to research it further prior to the public hearing. Ms. Bettman indicated that she would be looking for ways in which the residents were notified before the decision was made and for ways residents could formally weigh in. She asked why the park owners would receive SDC credits in a situation wherein the owners were converting the land to a “higher use.” Mr. Weinman replied that the owners might not receive SDC credits. He said in the spirit of compromise the members of the committee wanted to find a “four-way compensation package.” He noted that the SDC credits would be decided on a case by case basis. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz clarified that the provision on SDC credits was not currently in the ordinance. Mr. Weinman added that such a credit would only be granted at the time of the building permit. Mr. Clark asked why the City was facing this issue and why it was in the owner’s interest to sell the land. Mr. Weinman replied that it was not that parks were closing “right and left,” rather that for a variety of reasons the cost of land was going up and at some point people look at redeveloping property. Mr. Clark asked if there were more park closures statewide than before. Mr. Weinman affirmed there were because park owners were getting paid large amounts of money for their properties. Mr. Zelenka asked when the last mobile home park had been created in the City of Eugene. Mr. Weinman guessed that it had been 20 years. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Weinman stated that the mobile home park vacancy rate was low. Mr. Zelenka noted that it was low-income housing. Mr. Zelenka referred to House Bill (HB) 2735, noting that it declared the payments to mobile home owners to be non-taxable income. He asked if this was a new development or if the existing payments were taxable. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification on the provision of SDC credits under some circumstances. Mr. Weinman replied that the committee had struggled with the issue of compensation. He related that there were members of the committee who felt it should not just be the park owners’ responsibility to pay. He explained that owners questioned why they should have to pay compensation just for wanting to sell land that was theirs and the SDC credits were seen as a way to “spread that pain around.” He said this was a way for the local government to participate in the compensation equation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Jennings noted, as a point of information, that the Elmira Estates manufactured home park was developed in 1999 and that several others had been developed around 1989 to 1990. Ms. Solomon confirmed that the committee had wanted “all four entities” to participate in the compensation process. She pointed out that people signed a document when moving into a manufactured home park that affirmed they knew it was not a permanent space. Mr. Zelenka noted that the compensation outlined in Section 6 indicated homeowners would receive 100 percent compensation unless their homes were in commercial zones or flood plains and in that instance they would receive 50 percent compensation. He did not perceive the ordinance as a conversion program so much as a protection against getting rid of low income housing. He questioned why the latter homeowners should be singled out. Mr. Weinman did not disagree. He said the section, as written, had come from the spirit of the compromise the committee had worked with. Mr. Zelenka observed that HB 2735 would give a five-year property tax assessment value freeze on the manufactured home park land after the closure and asked if that was true regardless of what the property owner did with the property. Mr. Weinman affirmed that it was true. Mayor Piercy asked how the City of Eugene’s proposals differed from the State legislation. Mr. Weinman replied that local recommendations included a housing counselor. He said the State legislation did not allow rent increases during the period after the park owners had announced a park would close. He related that the State legislation had a somewhat different schedule for paying moving costs, but it was not very different from the local ordinance. Ms. Bettman did not believe the SDC credits were included in the ordinance. She surmised that the City Manager would have “broad discretion” to grant those credits. Mr. Lidz responded that there were some state requirements for when those credits should be granted and there were some that were in the SDC methodology. Ms. Bettman asked if the City would have to take formal steps to amend the SDC methodology to allow such credits. She commented that when speaking of “spreading the pain around,” she assumed someone would close their manufactured home park because they believed they would make more money through another land use. She believed this constituted compensation. She asserted that given that an SDC was charged for capacity, any unpaid costs would be transferred onto the remainder of the community. She asked for clarification as to how the “SDC piece” would be implemented and specified that it be given in writing. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Weinman pointed out that Attachment B contained specific information on the differences and whether the local ordinance was better than what the State legislation would provide for. Mr. Clark asked whether the House Bill or Senate Bill was more likely to pass. Mr. Weinman replied that the House Bill had passed through committee and was the one with the preemption clause. City Manager Taylor noted that the item was scheduled for a public hearing on June 18. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 6 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: Oregon Department of Transportation Presentation on I-5/Willamette River Bridge Project City Manager Taylor invited Transportation Planning Engineer for the Public Works Department, Chris Henry, to the table. Mr. Henry introduced Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff member, Tim Dodson, and consultant for the project, Lou Krug. He noted that the existing bridge was 45 years old; in a 2002 assessment it had been found to be damaged and the repairs would not be cost effective. Mr. Dodson provided a power point presentation entitled The OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program and the Willamette River Bridge, hard copies of which were provided to the council and staff. He reminded the council that the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA) III had included $1.3 billion for the repair and replacement of 365 bridges around the State, of which the Willamette River Bridge was one. He said originally the bridge had been scheduled for approximately $70 million but since then it had been increased to $180 million. He added that at this point in time the whole program was in “negative reserve.” Mr. Dodson recognized the members of the Community Advisory Group who were present noting that they had been participating in the design process for the bridge and had been very helpful. He reported that ODOT had met with the Laurel Hill Valley Neighborhood, the City of Springfield, and the American Institute of Architects. He said they would meet with the County Commissioners later in the week and hoped to meet with the Fairmount Neighbors as well. Mr. Dodson related that impacts to the environment were of primary interest to the regulators. He stated that the project was in the environmental assessment phase. He explained that as the environmental analysis was conducted a better idea of the number of piers and the bridge footprint would be known. He said they had identified which bridge types could be afforded by the current budget. He noted that ODOT was planning to procure a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), adding that having construction experience interfacing with the design process would bring energy to the design team. He showed slides of the conceptual designs that had been formulated thus far and delineated the differences between them. In conclusion, Mr. Dodson stated that ODOT was willing to build any bridge but only had $70 million to allocate to it unless additional funds could be brought in. He noted that the $70 million was for the bridge structure alone. He said the project included funding for another $110 million in engineering and other costs, noting that it would cost several million dollars to demolish the existing bridge alone. Mayor Piercy commented that the designs responded to the City’s needs but not to its “wishes.” She said it had been hoped that the bridge would be a “signature bridge” and would serve as a gateway to the two communities. She asked what the timeline was for additional funds. Mr. Dodson replied that ODOT would need to know of any significant design changes within six months. Mayor Piercy asked if any particular comments had been made by members of the public about the design of the bridge. Mr. Dodson responded that some members of the public had voiced support for an arch kind of structure and some had suggested a cabled bridge. Mr. Henry added that the community response had been mixed with regard to bridge types. He stated that the Community Advisory Group had expressed a preference for reducing the environmental impact over esthetics. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Dodson and Mr. Krug for the presentation. He said though the Harlow Neighbor- hood Association was not going to be tremendously impacted they would still appreciate being updated on the project. Mr. Poling asked if there were plans to expand Franklin Boulevard to seven lanes. Mr. Dodson replied that ODOT had picked a conservative cross-section in order to provide a hole big enough under the bridge to expand the road to the “worst case.” Mr. Henry stressed that neither jurisdiction was advocating for expansion of the road to seven lanes. He said the future scenario for Franklin Boulevard included two lanes in each direction, two EmX lanes, and some additional width. Mr. Pryor averred that it was worthwhile to balance the transportation needs, environmental needs, and esthetics. He was conscious of the costs and preferred a single span over the river. He expressed a preference for the haunched bridge design. Ms. Bettman expressed surprise that the collateral projects were more expensive than the bridge itself. She wondered what was included. Mr. Henry responded that the elevation of the roadway to the bridge had to be raised. Mr. Dodson added that Franklin Boulevard ramps would also have to be raised and this would include construction of a wall. Mr. Henry clarified that the bridge would have to be higher because of the railroad tracks. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a planning process in preparation for application for the greenway permit. Mr. Henry asked Associate Planner for the Planning Division, Ann Siegenthaler, to respond to the question. Ms. Siegenthaler explained that there would probably be five or six land use approvals through the process of bridge construction and some of those would require council approval. She said the details on the permits were not yet known. She stated that land use approvals included a greenway permit, a Metro Plan amendment, and a Refinement Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a design option to construct a bridge with no piers in the river, such as a suspension bridge. Mr. Dodson replied that there was no affordable option for that. Ms. Bettman asked for more detail on the costs that were arising from things other than the bridge. Mr. Dodson replied that those types of costs were associated with the construction of the bridge and were necessary to its construction. Mr. Henry added that ODOT did value engineering throughout a project and actively looked for ways to reduce the costs. Ms. Bettman asked when ODOT representatives would come before the council again in regard to this project. Mr. Dodson projected that they would return in a year, after final design work had begun post the environmental assessment. He added that any time the council wished to ask ODOT staff to come and speak about the project they could do so. Ms. Bettman said she liked suspension bridges. Mayor Piercy was appreciative of the work that ODOT was doing to get out in front of the environmental impact. She welcomed hearing from the community on both the environmental and visual impact. Mr. Zelenka echoed Ms. Bettman’s preference. He asked how much it would cost to build a bridge with one or no piers. Mr. Dodson replied that it would add at least $30 million to the project cost. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked if anyone had asked Representative Peter DeFazio for more money for the project. Mayor Piercy replied that Rep. DeFazio had said that this area had already received a lot of transportation improvement funding. She noted that the federal government would be providing less transportation funding in the next fiscal year. Mr. Zelenka preferred the arched bridge design over the haunched design. Ms. Ortiz thanked them for their work. She said she wanted the bridge to be functional for a long time. She added that bridges did not tend to be pretty. Mayor Piercy commented that the City might have to be more modest in its expectations. She thought it was still possible to make something the community could be proud of. She felt the bridge was located in an important place in the community. Mr. Dodson remarked that they had looked at the form of the bridge, because that was where the money was, but when the bridge was being constructed they could put concrete form liners or add color to the bridge fairly economically. Mayor Piercy asked if the arts community had been involved in the discussion. She averred that the City should not do anything unless it “looked through the lens” of being the City of the Arts and Outdoors. Mr. Henry replied that there were members of the Community Advisory Group who had involvement with the parks. He thought it would be possible to add the arts perspective through the group. He reiterated that there had been a presentation to the American Institute of Architects. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Dodson replied that the only pedestrian access on the freeway system consisted of the 12-foot wide shoulders of the roadway. He said while the State of Oregon allowed pedestrians to walk by the freeways it did not encourage them to do so. Mr. Zelenka asked what the lifetime of the bridge was projected to be. Mr. Dodson replied that it would be built to last 100 years. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 9 Work Session