Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/23/09 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon February 23, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Ms. Piercy congratulated the Parks and Open Space division for receiving national recognition of it use of eco-friendly bike trailers, the Public Works Maintenance division for recognition from the state for its work to reduce diesel exhaust and Building and Permits Services for beginning Saturday service. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners and the Human Services Commission for their work to open the Armory as emergency shelter during severe weather. She attended the opening of the new bike/pedestrian bridge over Interstate 5 and a ceremony celebrating promotions in the Eugene Police Department (EPD). Mr. Clark reported on his attendance at a February 10, Chamber of Commerce economic forecast meeting, which provided much helpful information. He also attended a Police Commission meeting at which policy recommendations on mental health crisis response and medical marijuana cards were finalized. He thanked staff for its work on downtown parking issues and congratulated police employees who received promotions. Ms. Ortiz said the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency budget review would occur next week. She drew the public’s attention to a memorandum from Dawn Reynolds regarding work with the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC), Judge Wayne Allen’s position on the downtown public safety zone ordinance and Johnny Medlin’s comments on skate park funding, all of which could be found in the online agenda packet. Mr. Pryor said he had recently toured affordable housing projects and was pleased at the number of units dispersed through the community. He reported that a public forum on the police auditor ordinance was held last week and was well attended. He said the West Eugene Collaborative was completing its final report and would provide an opportunity to discuss the collaborative process. He attended the Birth to Three and Active 20/30 Club fund raising events and encouraged people to support social service agencies to the extent they were able. Ms. Taylor commented that the Tango Center appealed to a broad range of people, provided inexpensive entertainment and brought life to the downtown area. She urged the council to do anything it could to save the center. She said the urban renewal district had funds available and there was also a revolving loan fund. She wanted to prevent the Tango Center from closing. She noted that Spray Play was coming to Washing- ton Park and asked if similar facilities would be installed in all parks, including Tugman Park. She pointed MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 1 Work Session out that the council had voted to explore locations for a police station that were owned by the City and in the downtown area; the council did not vote to build a police station as reported in the media. Mr. Poling announced that the Convention and Visitor Association of Lane County (CVALC) was now Travel Lane County. He thanked the 26 community members who participated in the selection process for a new police auditor. He said he had attended the opening of the bike/pedestrian bridge and groundbreaking for the newest EmX route. He congratulated EPD employees who were promoted. Mr. Brown commended the First Place Family Development Center for its service to the community. He said he had attended the Asian Celebration, a presentation in honor of Oregon’s Sesquicentennial, the EPD promotions ceremony, a McKenzie Watershed Council meeting and the police auditor public forum. He thanked Lane County for making the Armory available as a shelter during severe weather. He hoped it could be made into a permanent facility for the homeless. Mr. Zelenka noted that in the 2008 population figures, Eugene ranked second in the state. He said 6,865 potholes had been filled in 2008 and over 1,200 filled so far in 2009; also in 2009 there would be 21 transportation projects throughout the city. He said Project Homeless Connect would be held March 6, at the Lane County Events Center and thanked the County for converting the Armory into a homeless shelter during bad winter weather. He said he had attended the bike/pedestrian bridge opening and the EmX groundbreaking ceremony. He indicated that the EmX project was being constructed almost entirely with state and federal dollars; only seven percent of the project cost was locally funded. He thanked the community members who participated on the police auditor interview panel. Mr. Clark said he attended his first Metropolitan Partnership Board meeting and there was an extensive discussion of the local economy and strategies to address local economic development. He said the local legislative delegation had also engaged in community discussions of the state’s budget shortfalls in the current and next fiscal years. Ms. Taylor stated that the council had not voted on February 11 to purchase the Eugene Water & Electric Board property. She was only willing to support a seismic upgrade and rehabilitation of City Hall and felt the voters should be asked if they were willing to build a police station. Ms. Piercy clarified that the council’s discussion was not about a police headquarters building; it was about a patrol facility. City Manager Jon Ruiz commented that he had recently done a ride-along with a police officer and encouraged councilors to do the same as it was an educational experience. He would provide additional information on the budget during the coming week as the impact of the State’s budget crisis on the City became clearer. He said the Budget Committee would be faced with some very difficult decisions. B. WORK SESSION: Surface Transportation Program – Urban (STP-U) Ms. Piercy referred to an earlier presentation by Lane Transit District (LTD) about its budget problems and the dilemma of reducing services at a time when ridership was increasing. She said it was essential to make public transportation available to people in difficult economic times. At a recent meeting of the Metropoli- tan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting LTD had shared those concerns and a proposal to use STP-U funds to MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 2 Work Session supplant capital funds in its budget, freeing the capital funds to support bus operations and LTD was asked to make that presentation to each MPC jurisdiction. Public Works Transportation Planning Manager Rob Inerfeld introduced LTD General Manager Mark Pangborn and Board President Mike Eyster. He explained that STP-U funds were the primary flexible funds available to the metropolitan area and they were allocated by the MPC. He said the annual allocation was $2.5-3 million and in the past the MPC had allocated 10 percent to transportation options, 25 percent to planning and 65 percent to capital projects. He estimated that $1.6 million would be available for capital projects in the next fiscal year and it was those funds that LTD was proposing to use for transit. He said typically the MPC allocated funds on a three-year cycle to provide a larger pool of funds for projects and this is the end of the three-year cycle. In the past the council’s direction to staff had been to use STP-U funds for pavement preservation on streets and off-street shared use paths, modernization and bikeway improvements, with the recent focus on preservation. Mr. Eyster referred to an updated LTD proposal that had been distributed at the meeting. He said budget problems had been created by the increasing costs of paratransit for the elderly and disabled, which far exceeded funding provided by the state, increasing costs of fuel and the decline in the economy. He said the LTD Board had examined a number of options in an effort to balance the budget and avoid service cuts, but those were not enough to prevent a reduction in service. He said the initial proposal for STP-U funds had been revised based on information about transit funding in the federal economic stimulus package. Instead of requesting STP-U funds immediately, LTD would use economic stimulus funds to prevent service reductions in the first year and was asking to retain the option to request STP-U funds in subsequent years to avert service cuts. Mr. Pangborn said while the outlook had improved somewhat, the budget remained a moving target. He said stimulus funds would be a major factor in preventing immediate service cuts. He estimated the district would receive $6.5 million in stimulus dollars that would need to be spent in the next 18 months; half of that would be set aside for remodeling the maintenance facility and the other half would be used to reduce service cuts in the first year. He thought the federal transportation reauthorization bill would include STP-U or a very similar program and it was those funds for which LTD wanted to retain an option. Mr. Clark requested details of capital projects that would be postponed in order to shift funds to bus operations. Mr. Pangborn said real-time reader boards on EmX platforms and upgrades fare collection equipment on buses would be deferred. Mr. Clark asked if the Governor’s transportation bill included operational funds for transit. Mr. Pangborn replied that potential increases in funding for transit included an increase in the tobacco tax, acceleration of the payroll tax rate increase and an increase in the amount of the payroll tax. Mr. Eyster added that the LTD Board would determine how much of the payroll tax increase to implement locally. Mr. Clark expressed concerns about trading City capital preservation project dollars for transit operational funds. He said it appeared the district had sweeping capital goals for expansion of the system at a time when there were operational challenges. Mr. Eyster explained that LTD’s capital projects included few local funds as the district leveraged state and federal funds to the maximum extent to the benefit of the region. He was willing to provide more details about how capital projects and transit operations were funded. Mr. Pangborn added that the district’s MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 3 Work Session th largest capital project—the West 11 EmX extension—had no local funds; it was supported only by state and federal funds. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pangborn explained that half of the stimulus funds had to be spent to create jobs within 180 days of their receipt, which was why they could not all be used for operations. The district’s pressing need to expand its maintenance facility to accommodate the larger transit vehicles was a good fit for that requirement. He hoped that with the other half of the stimulus funds, service reductions could be prevented for a year. Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of buses to people who needed to get to work. She encouraged late night bus service to reduce the incidence of drunk driving. Mr. Zelenka asked if LTD was requesting to have $1.5 million in STP-U funds held in reserve for the next three fiscal years. He also asked for clarification on how the STP-U funds were currently being used. Mr. Inerfeld replied that transportation options funds were used to support Commuter Solutions work on transportation demand management, planning funds went to Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to provide staff support for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and to jurisdictions to support their involvement in MPO activities. He said the City received $40,000 and LCOG received around $400,000 per year. Mr. Zelenka asked about the impact of holding funds in reserve. Mr. Inerfeld said his understanding was that LTD was not asking for funds to be held in reserve; the proposal was to let the normal process for allocating STP-U funds go forward this year and in future years allow LTD to return with a request for STP-U funds if it was still necessary to avoid service reductions. Mr. Eyster said LTD had applied for STP-U funds in the past and under the proposal would agree that if those funds had to be allocated to the district, it would forego applying for STP-U funds for some time in the future. Mr. Zelenka noted that STP-U funds represented one of the few sources of flexible federal dollars and he was supportive of trading capital funds for City street improvements for maintaining bus service levels. Mr. Pryor asked if the proposal could include an agreement that if LTD did not need STP-U funds in a particular fiscal year it would release the reserved funds for that year instead of holding the whole amount in reserve for the entire period. Mr. Eyster said the financial picture was constantly changing and LTD would not request the funds if they were not needed. Mr. Ruiz clarified that LTD was not asking the council or MPC to take any action at this point, but there could be a time in future when there would be a request for funding. He said staff would be mindful of that possibility as it worked through the budgeting process. Mr. Inerfeld added that the council approved STP-U applications submitted by the City, but did not take a position on STP-U applications from other jurisdic- tions although guidance could be provided to the council’s MPC representatives. Ms. Piercy underscored how difficult it was for the public to understand the restrictions on use of funds. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Piercy and said his experience as an MPC member had demonstrated to him how little discretionary money was available. He asked if STP-U funds could be used to help fill the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 4 Work Session operations and maintenance budget gap in Public Works. Mr. Inerfeld replied that STP-U funds could not be used directly for annual operations and maintenance, but could be used for capital preservation. Mr. Pangborn said that was why LTD would use STP-U funds for capital projects and use the supplanted capital funds for transit operations. C. WORK SESSION Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir gave a brief overview of the Eugene Comprehen- sive Lands Assessment (ECLA) project. She introduced Jason Dedrick, Planning Division, to present the project update. She said staff would give periodic updates over the next year to assure the project remained consistent with council policy and direction. Mr. Dedrick used a PowerPoint presentation to provide project background information, explain the study methodology and describe community engagement activities and next steps. He said House Bill 3337 was the impetus for ECLA and the assessment of residential land sufficiency had to be completed by December 31, 2009. At the council’s direction, commercial, industrial and public/semi-public land was added to the study. He said the goal of the assessment was to determine if Eugene had a land supply sufficient to meet the needs of the 2030 population. He reviewed the assessment methodology and engagement of the community through formation of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Agency Technical Advisory (TAC) Committee. Next steps in the project would include community group meetings, scenario develop- ment and public workshops. Mr. Clark asked how Eugene’s lands assessment was tracking with the timeline of Springfield’s land assessment and if there were any savings being realized by working collaboratively. Mr. Dedrick said Springfield was slightly ahead in the process and Eugene had been able to learn from their experiences; there was also cross-membership on each community’s committees and sharing of regional information. Regarding population figures, Mr. Clark said there were initial population numbers from LCOG, then the City used the safe harbor approach and recently Portland State University (PSU) had developed some numbers. He asked if population figures were likely to be challenged and, if so, how that would affect the project timeline. Mr. Dedrick said that while a challenge is always a possibility, a key factor in the project was Eugene’s lack of an adopted population number for the year 2030, which was the reason for initiating the safe harbor process. He said the safe harbor process allowed the City to establish a population number in lieu of County adoption of a number for 2030. He said the ECLA project was under a strict deadline, which made it difficult to wait for the County to adopt a population number; therefore, the safe harbor number was being used in the project. Mr. Clark asked if the City would need to recalculate if the County adopted a population number in the near future. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that the statutes specifically stated that if the City had adopted a safe harbor number it could rely on that figure. She said if it appeared the County would have an adopted number in time for it to be used in the project, there might be no need for the City to adopt a safe harbor number. Mr. Clark asked if the legislature would clarify its intent regarding demonstration under HB 3337. Ms. Jerome said the legislature had not commented on its intent nor had any bills been submitted that dealt with determination as opposed to demonstration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Regarding constrained land, Mr. Clark asked if statutes defined what “constrained” meant as it affected the 20-year land supply. Mr. Dedrick said some constraints were specifically identified and there were provisions for partially constrained lands; for example, a portion of a lot might be constrained by Goal 5 while the rest was not, compared to a lot that was fully constrained. Mr. Clark asked for a legal opinion on whether there was considered to be access to partially constrained land. Ms. Jerome said there were specific constraints that had to be considered, but the process was very dependent on the situation of an individual jurisdiction. She said it was clear there were assumptions made by jurisdictions and the contractor hired to work on the project was the premier contractor in the State and would be a valuable resource to the City. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Dedrick said the project would use a safe harbor number instead of the figure from PSU. Ms. Jerome said that the City would need to consider PSU’s certified population figures for the area when establishing its safe harbor number; PSU’s work for the County is different. Ms. Piercy asked if Springfield’s stakeholder groups and public involvement process were the same as Eugene’s. Mr. Dedrick said the process was the same, although the committee structure was slightly different. Mr. Zelenka asked how TAC and CAC members were selected. He also asked which contractors were involved in the project. Mr. Dedrick replied that lists of potential members were developed by staff based on those stakeholders, interests and expertise that should be involved in the process. Entities were then approached and asked to designate a representative to participate. Three at-large positions on the CAC were open to the community through an application and selection process. He said contractors were ECONorth- west, LCOG, the Ulum Group and other expert consultants that were used on an on-call basis to address specific issues. Mr. Zelenka said he was looking for an emphasis on density and redevelopment and reuse of land within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Dedrick said the assessment was going beyond statutory requirements, such as defining housing types as that would be critical to redevelopment. Ms. Piercy remarked that asking neighborhoods to absorb a certain amount of density was not working; it was necessary to consult with neighborhoods to determine the type and location of density that was appropriate. She said the West Eugene Collaborative was having robust discussions of density and redevelopment. Ms. Taylor asked who chose the at-large members of the CAC. Mr. Dedrick said they were chosen by staff. Ms. Taylor said there used to be a Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) that made those decisions and she wished it was still in existence. She asked how much was being spent on consultants. Ms. Muir explained that when the CIC was eliminated, the Planning Commission took on that function and had advised staff on the entire community engagement component of the process. Mr. Dedrick said $280,000 of the project budget was for consultant services and the City had received a $100,000 grant from the state to offset those costs. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pryor was pleased the project was underway and the issues were very important. He did not have a pre- ordained outcome in mind or a bias about the project results. He said the council had to have a policy level discussion about density and its relationship to the land supply and the information generated by the project would guide those discussions. He said there was pressure to stay within the UGB and build as densely and efficiently as possible, and pressure to preserve the character of neighborhoods and not build in an overly dense way; the council would need to reconcile those competing demands. Ms. Ortiz felt there were some components missing in community representation. She said that the decisions being made would affect under-represented communities in some areas of the City and hoped that would be taken into consideration during the public outreach process. Mr. Dedrick said once the assessment was completed there could be a more robust involvement of a wider cross-section of the community in the process of analyzing what the results meant to the community; the current phase of the project had a more technical aspect. Mr. Clark asked if the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting projects were still targeted for completion by the end of 2009. Ms. Muir said that was still the goal and the neighborhood empowerment initiative that was underway was also timely. Mr. Clark looked forward to conversations about a 20-year vision for the community once all of the information was available. Mr. Zelenka said the conversation would be interesting and the decisions difficult. His best outcome was for the community to create consensus around those issues, but the council would need to have a discussion of tradeoffs, density and neighborhood livability. He challenged staff to create a framework for those conversations. Ms. Piercy cautioned that decisions should not be based on the need to do something; they should be based on the best vision for the community if it was necessary to accommodate more density. The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 7 Work Session