Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/09/09 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon March 9, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that action on Item 4 on the agenda would be postponed as further work was required. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Ron Dittler, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, and Peter Ruffier, Eugene Public Works, presented an award to the City of Eugene from the Lane Council of Governments recognizing the Metropoli- tan Wastewater Management Commission intergovernmental partnership, which had provided wastewater services for 72 years. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed procedures for providing comments. Drix, West University neighborhood, Eugene, spoke to the council about toilets, Twitter, style and class. He described the public toilets that were available at the Burning Man gathering and said that public toilets gave back integrity. He would provide more information at a later date. He discussed Twitter, an internet site that allowed people to connect with one-sentence statements about what they were doing. He suggested th allowing local artists to put their work at the 10 and Charnelton site downtown. Joe Collins, Eugene, discussed the Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard “triad.” He said residents of the “triad” were coming before the council with many requests, including saving the Amazon Creek headwaters, saving trees, designation of their streets and objections to paying for street improvements because others would use them. He said those residents spent hundreds of hours preparing presentations to protect their neighborhoods and wallets. He noted the City was already paying $3.15 million of the $5.7 million cost of upgrading streets. He urged the council to read an article in that day’s Register- Guard about the project. He said it was discouraging to see so many people organized for their own benefit instead of advocating for things to benefit the community like a homeless shelter, more clinics, more jail beds and more treatment programs for addicts. Zachary Vishanoff, Ward 3, Eugene, urged the council to think about retaining the current police chief. He commended Interim Police Chief Pete Kerns for his willingness to solve problems and hoped he would be considered for the permanent position. Regarding the Police Auditor, he expressed concern that delaying an administrative investigation, during a criminal investigation, was a way to avoid investigating the police and supported concurrent investigations. He opposed involving municipal court judges in resolving differences of opinions between the Police Auditor and Police Chief regarding concurrent investigations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 1 Marlene Varady , Crest Drive, Ward 2, Eugene, submitted a petition with 37 signatures requesting the following: assess the entire ward affected by road improvements, allow assessments to be paid when property is sold, make available an interest-free or very low interest loan from the City and provide some type of tax advantage or lower property taxes on assessed homes to help defer the costs. She had talked to many neighbors and one family was faced with foreclosure while other faced considerable financial hardships. She said there was a range of incomes in the neighborhood. Declining property values and lack of financing made it extremely difficult for people to sell homes. Kim Heddinger , Crest Drive, Ward 2, Eugene, stated that she owned two lots and would be assessed $38,000, which was not affordable. She objected to Mr. Collins’ characterization of neighbors as a “triad” and noted that the neighborhood was diverse. She said the roads had been in poor condition for many decades and the improvements would not increase property values. She said it would be difficult to finance the assessments in the current credit climate. She encouraged the City to research how other municipalities handled street improvement assessments. Marilyn Mohr , River Road neighborhood, said her neighbors recognized the inequitability of the current system of assessment for street improvements. She encouraged the council to find more equitable methods for financing street improvements as it affected property owners across the city. Jan Fillinger , Crest Drive, Ward 2, Eugene, encouraged the council to modify the code to provide a fairer assessment method for street improvements and supported a moratorium on street improvements if that was necessary in order to establish a more equitable approach. He said many people, particularly the elderly, had fixed, low or no income and needed other options for paying assessments, such as when property was sold. He urged the council to delay the project and modify the code. Joan Kelly , Elmira Road, Eugene, commented that it was not that easy to obtain the necessary number of property owners to oppose a project as it was not simply 50 percent plus one; it was based on the assessable linear footage. She said a large number of rentals, and footage that was not directly in front of a residence, further complicated the matter. She was supportive of options such as paying an assessment at the time a property was sold. She was distressed that it appeared easier to assess residents for the cost of street improvements than to deal with the federal regulations involved in using stimulus funds. She noted inconsistencies in subsidy income information on different forms that had not yet been corrected. Bill Eddie , Crest Drive, Ward 2, Eugene, thanked the council for its thoughtful discussion of assessment issues. He said it was a good time to find a more equitable solution to paying for street improvements by sharing the financial burden among more users of the roads. He preferred postponing the project until next summer while a better assessment policy was developed. He said the assessment would currently affect about 120 tax lots; spreading it to Ward 2 would involve about 8,000 properties at an estimated $250 each. He said assessing every lot in the City would cost each home owner about $40 and make each street belong to all residents. He urged the council to change the code and make street assessments fair to all concerned. Randy Prince , Eugene, expressed disappointment over what he perceived as downgrading the police auditor’s position by eliminating the requirement that the auditor be an attorney. He felt the council’s discussion of supervision of the auditor sounded like micromanagement of a position that did not need any more feedback than the City Manager. He said the auditor was supposed to be independent and many of the issues that had currently been raised, such as concurrent investigations, would be much more difficult to resolve if the auditor was not as qualified as an attorney. He advocated for Interim Police Auditor Dawn MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 2 Reynolds, who he felt was the best candidate for the permanent position. He said he had well-founded problems with the Eugene Police Department and the agency needed to be reformed. Marion Eddie , Crest Drive, Ward 2, Eugene, thanked the council for its willingness to consider revising the street assessment policy and look for an equitable and fair solution. Steve Hirons , Crest Drive, Ward 2, Eugene, described growing up just outside Eugene and traveling along Crest Drive regularly. He said that many others who did not live along the street also used it on a daily basis and the cost of street improvements should not be imposed solely on the owners of properties along those streets. He encouraged the council to postpone the street improvement project while other more equitable approaches to assessment of costs could be considered. Toby Gamberoni , Crest Drive, Ward 2, Eugene, thanked the council for being receptive to new approaches to assessment and concurred with the comments of other Crest Drive area residents. He commented on the surcharge associated with his Sanipac bill, which would be used to keep streets in good operating conditions. He noted that Crest Drive was used by many parents who were taking children to and from Crest Elementa- ry and thought they should also be assessed for street improvements. He said the bank owned 75 percent of his home, but he paid the property taxes, and suggested that perhaps banks could assist with the cost of street improvements. He observed that potholes tended to slow traffic. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and called for comments from the council. She pointed out that the City Manager was responsible for hiring the police chief. She assured Crest Drive area residents that the council did not want to see anyone lose their home because of assessments and was willing to work on ideas. She pointed out that the federal stimulus dollars could be used for repairs only on streets classified as collectors and above. Councilor Zelenka stated that the reason the City had a $170 million backlog of street repair projects was because over the years funding from the federal, state and County levels had vanished and the gas tax had not been increased since 1993, leaving local jurisdictions to pay for roads. He asked how many jurisdictions used an assessment methodology similar to Eugene’s. City Engineer Mark Schoening replied that most cities had a similar approach, but it was not used frequently; only affected properties were assessed. Councilor Zelenka clarified that all residents paid for maintaining improved streets. He said there would be $6.5 million in stimulus funds for all of Lane County and Eugene’s share would pay for four projects out of a very large backlog. He was willing to consider changes to the assessment policy, but felt that whatever method was selected would be perceived by some as unfair. Councilor Clark encouraged those who were affected by street projects to participate and provide their input. He agreed with the need to slow the process and assure that no one lost their home. He agreed with Councilor Zelenka about the funds that had historically been available for repairing roads, but no significant amount of local property taxes was spent on fixing roads; those tax revenues were spent on other City services, although he felt that a larger portion of that money should be used for roads. He said most of the local funding came from gas tax revenue and the council was currently discussing other funding sources. Councilor Ortiz announced that Lane County was making the armory across from Autzen Stadium available for emergency shelter during severe weather. She thanked Ellen Teninty for facilitating the work of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee. She encouraged people to take advantage of the opportunity to vote on whether a street improvement project should move forward. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 3 Councilor Taylor remarked that the street assessment policy was unjust. She was not certain that postponing the project was the right choice, but felt there had to be a better way to pay for street repairs, such as assessing all residents, low interest loans, delayed payments or other options. Mayor Piercy observed that Eugene’s financial situation was shared by cities all over Oregon. She said that over 60 percent of the City’s budget was spent on public safety and the remainder on basic services that were very important to the community. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of January 7, 2009, State of the City Address; January 21, 2009, Work Session; January 26, 2009, City Council Meeting; February 9, 2009, Work Session; February 18, 2009, Work Session. B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4967 Requesting that Jurisdiction over a Portion of County Road No. 180 (Old Coburg Road) Be Transferred to the City of Eugene within a Specified Period of Time D. Appointment to Police Commission E. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of January 28, 2009, February 4, 2009, and February 11, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed, 8:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 1051 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2008, and Ending June 30, 2009. Mayor Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. Councilor Clark recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, Eugene, said that urban renewal siphoned away money for basic services; the funds could instead be used to pay for streets. He said two-way conversions of streets like Willamette Street were costly and made streets more dangerous. He said many smart growth policies helped to grow the backlog of street projects. He urged the council to take a holistic view and said some of the $440,000 in the supplemental budget could be used to assist the Tango Center downtown. He said downtown mixed- use had become vandalized and empty. He was concerned about empty commercial space and agreed with Councilor Taylor that the focus should be on housing and parks. He suggested using urban renewal dollars for micro loans. John Barofsky , Ward 3, Eugene, stated that the council should approve the urban renewal district’s supplemental budget. He described the line items within the $440,000 amount and brought the council’s attention to $50,000 in legal fees, which came to approximately 250 hours of legal work on the project. He encouraged the council to consider hiring an in-house attorney instead of contracting out with a private firm. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She said the City Manager was exploring the possibility of in- house legal counsel. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 4 In response to a request from Councilor Zelenka, staff provided details of the estimated costs within the supplemental budget. Nan Laurence, Planning Department, explained that the $50,000 for legal fees was a th cumulative number and the complications of a development project such as the 10 and Charnelton site depended on legal expertise. She said staff used legal counsel as judiciously as possible and hoped the actual costs would be lower than those in the supplemental budget. She clarified that some of the fees associated with the project would be shared with or paid by the developer. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 1051 adopting a supplemen- tal budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2008, and ending June 30, 2009. The motion passed, 7:0:1; Councilor Clark abstaining. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. 5. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions on Legislative Policy from February 25 and March 4, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Relations Committee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the February 25 and March 4, 2009, IGR Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those IGR meetings. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson reported that at the IGR February 25, 2009, meeting, committee members were not unanimous on House Bill (HB) 2643 regarding exclusion of special taxing districts from participation in urban renewal plans. She said staff had recommended a Priority 2, Oppose position because the bill would have a potentially negative financial impact on the City because the exclusion of taxing districts would reduce revenue. She said the IGR committee voted 2:1 against Councilor Taylor’s motion to take a Priority 2, Support position. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to take a Priority 2, Oppose position on HB 2643. Councilor Taylor stated she voted to support the bill because urban renewal diverted money from schools and other taxing jurisdictions that needed it. She felt they should have the option of not participating. Councilor Brown agreed with Councilor Taylor. He said that school districts should receive all of the tax money that was raised for them; it should not be diverted. He said last year people who opposed the urban renewal district determined that $263 was being diverted for each child in the state for all of the urban renewal agencies. He said that meant a school of 300 students lost $75,000 per year. He was not certain that all taxing jurisdictions should be allowed to opt out, but did favor that for school districts. Mayor Piercy pointed out that on the other side of the equation was the amount of increased taxes that urban renewal districts brought in. Councilor Poling remarked that urban renewal districts were self-funding and the bill would decrease the amount of money available. He said supporting the bill would be in conflict with the council’s legislative policy to oppose reductions in urban renewal. Councilor Clark said he was not a fan of urban renewal agencies, but the bill would make districts less effective and he could not support it. He would support the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 5 Councilor Ortiz asked if the bill had any relationship to providing additional state per student funding to schools. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill would not accomplish that on its own. Councilor Ortiz supported the urban renewal district as a useful tool for accomplishing the council’s goals for downtown. She said even if HB 2643 did pass, there was no guarantee of more funds for Oregon’s school children because of the state’s school funding formula. Councilor Taylor asserted that funds were diverted and even with the school equalization funding formula some students somewhere would get more money. She felt schools should have the option of not participat- ing and the tax money in an urban renewal districts could come from some other place. Councilor Zelenka explained that any dollars would go back to the state’s General Fund and the legislature would have to allocate it to schools. He doubted that would happen with the state facing a $3 billion budget deficit and allowing school districts to opt out of urban renewal districts would not increase their available funding. The motion passed 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting no. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Water Quality Waterway Provisions; Adding Sections 9.4770 through 9.4790 to the Eugene Code, 1971 that Establish a Water Quality Overlay Zone; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1040, 9.7055, 9.7205, 9.7305, 9.7820, 9.8005, 9.8025, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8415, 9.8470, 9.8472, 9.8474, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9.8855, and 9.8865 of that Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 20194 and Sections 6.650, 6.655, 6.660. 6.665, and 6.670 of that Code; Adopting the Water Quality Waterways Map; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date City Attorney Emily Jerome stated that the record for the matter was closed following the council’s public hearing in May 2008. She understood the council had just received email testimony concerning the ordinance from Barbara Combs. She said Ms. Combs had submitted substantial testimony while the record was open; however, unless there was a motion to reopen the record the email testimony was specifically rejected and would not be considered in the council’s decision-making process. Therese Walch, Public Works Department, explained that the ordinance was a waterway protection proposal that aimed to fill the gaps in protection on waterways of significance to water quality, and acknowledged the significant incidental protection provided by the Goal 5 natural resources protections adopted previously by the council. She said impetus for the protections could be found in the Clean Water Act, as well as local adopted policies in the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan adopted in 1993. She said approx- imately 13.5 miles of waterways would be protected, the ordinance would affect approximately 368 property owners within the city limits upon adoption and ultimately up to about 548 property owners, the difference being properties currently outside the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary that would be affected only upon annexation. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Council Bill 4975, an ordinance on water quality waterways protection. Councilor Clark commented that the council had just discussed street improvements and how they wanted to avoid affecting a minority of people unfairly. He said the ordinance was the same issue; it was a worthy MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 6 goal to protect waterways, but resulted in up to 548 people losing their property rights for value that was shared by the entire community. He said it was wrong to put the cost of cleaning up waterways on a very few people and he would not support the ordinance. Councilor Poling asked what it would cost the City to acquire the property necessary to meet the proposal. Ms. Walch said the cost estimate for a conservation easement approach was provided at the council’s January 28, 2009, work session as an alternative to a regulatory approach. She said the ordinance was not a proposal to acquire those management areas. Councilor Solomon agreed with Councilor Clark’s objections to the ordinance. The motion passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling and Solomon voting no. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 7