Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/20/09 Public Hearing M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing/Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 20, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown. Councilor Zelenka called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Kitty Piercy was representing the City in Portland at the National League of Cities Green Cities Conference. 1. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Scott Smith , Pond Lane, Eugene, Ward 5, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He said he attended many of the meetings of the advisory committee convened to make recommendations to the council on rental housing issues and was surprised by the lack of attendance of tenants. He felt the ordinance revisions were being driven by a vocal minority of tenants claiming to be self-appointed tenant advocates. He did not think mold was a problem that rose to the level of an ordinance amendment. He said the existing rental program operated with a surplus of funds and adding mold to the ordinance would not mean they were spent on better service to the citizens of Eugene. Regarding mold, Mr. Smith remarked that the ordinance did not recognize the fact that the majority of household mold was related to tenant behavior and choices, such as use of ventilation fans, maintaining proper heat in the dwelling, having aquariums or other sources of moisture. He agreed that leaks from plumbing or roofs, which also caused mold, was the responsibility of the landlord, but that was already covered in the code. He said the net effect of the ordinance would be to reduce the amount of affordable rental housing available in the community. Don Milligan, Eugene, stated he was no longer in the rental business, but was representing someone whose property had been destroyed by a tenant. He described the situation in which a tenant had rented property for ten years and when he left the property was so heavily damaged it had to be demolished; the landlord had lost her livelihood and was faced with the cost of demolishing the structure while still paying taxes and insurance costs. He said a landlord rented for 60 cents on the dollar. Jim Welsh , Centennial Parkway, Eugene, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, said many realtors were also in property management and mold was a concern to them. He said mold was directly related to moisture and felt the proposed ordinance took an appropriate approach by emphasizing education and investigation, instead of direct regulation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 1 Public Hearing John VanLandingham , North Grand Street, Eugene, stated he had been co-chair of the advisory committee dealing with the subject of mold. As an advocate for low-income tenants for the past 30 years, he said that mold was a concern for tenants statewide. He said the committee recommendation was the right way to approach mold; it did not add mold to the list of violations under the housing code, but instead identified the presence of significant visible mold as a symptom of something that was already a violation of the housing code such as plumbing or a leak in the building envelope. He said experts consulted by the committee stated that in every case where there were significant mold deposits it was the result of a leak and not tenant behavior. Councilor Zelenka thanked Mr. VanLandingham for co-chairing the committee and other committee members for their service. He called for comments from councilors. Councilor Brown said he attended an advisory committee meeting and found the presentation from a microbiologist who studied mold to be very informative, specifically that molds caused by tenant behavior were not the ones that caused health problems. He said molds that caused health problems required the level of moisture that occurred from a long-standing water intrusion. He felt the proposed ordinance language did not present an onerous burden for landlords. Councilor Solomon asked how a determination of “significant visible mold” was made. Mr. VanLanding- ham said the ordinance did not provide a definition beyond that term; that was the standard used in several other cities and states. He said the City’s inspectors would be trained to identify significant visible mold and investigate the source. Councilor Brown asked if City inspectors would test mold to determine the varieties that were present and determine whether any were harmful. Mr. VanLandingham said consultants who were experts had indicated that current testing procedures were not reliable and the committee’s recommendation did not require testing. Councilor Clark felt the term “significant” was vague, particularly when it could result in considerable expense to a landlord. He would prefer more clarity of definition in the ordinance. He asked how the committee’s recommendations added protection that was not already available through the state and whether there was a state measurement of significant mold. Mr. VanLandingham said mold was not mentioned in state statute, but landlords were required to maintain rental units free of significant plumbing leaks and building envelope leaks. He said Legal Aid lawyers regarded the statute as sufficient because it addressed the causes of mold. Councilor Clark asked if the committee’s recommendation was unanimous. Mr. VanLandingham said the decision was unanimous. He said the committee also agreed that it was not feasible to provide a specific definition of “significant visible mold” as other cities’ housing programs operated without one and trained City staff would be able to identify it when they saw it and initiate an investigation of the source. Councilor Ortiz asked for clarification of a budget message that the rental housing program was being moved from the General Fund. City Manager Jon Ruiz replied that the General Fund was paying a portion of the support costs for the program and that would no longer be the case. Councilor Ortiz asked if the current fees would be able to support the program. Program manager Rachelle Nicholas replied that the current fees would support the program and continue to generate excess revenue that would be retained within the program. She said the program would be moved from the General Fund MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 2 Public Hearing and become a dedicated fund because council had indicated it wanted all of the fees paid by property owners to remain with the program; this approach would allow better tracking of program revenue. Councilor Ortiz said she did not want to see revenue from fees simply collect in a fund and not be spent. She asked for an accounting of program revenues and expenditures. She asked if the General Fund was currently paying for part of the cost of program support costs. Mr. Ruiz said the General Fund was subsidizing City overhead costs. Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir explained that a dedicated fund would provide better cost accounting for Central Services costs such as information technology, phone service and facilities. She said the General Fund was not subsidizing the program, but those expenses were not being accounted for as a cost recovery method that demonstrated the program was paying for itself. Councilor Clark asked about the amount of money that was carried over during the first two years of the program and the total costs that were being shifted from the General Fund. Ms. Nicholas said approximate- ly $50,000 was carried over one year and $70,000 the next year. Ms. Muir said the Central Services costs were about $33,000 per year. Councilor Clark noted that would still leave carryover funds and asked if a new position would be added to enforce the new regulations. Ms. Muir said there were no plans to add another staff position and the department was still working to “right size” the program, which was still relatively new, to balance the fees with the budget and staff. Councilor Clark asked if the program budget message would indicate the intent for use of excess funds within the program on a long-term basis. Ms. Muir said retaining the fees within the program was part of the “right-sizing” process while actual operating expenses were determined. Councilor Clark commented that an earlier suggestion was to reduce the fees to property owners if the amount being collected was more than required to support the program and recommended staff considers that option. Mr. Ruiz said the intent was to maintain a reasonable fund balance in the program and adjust fees administratively as appropriate. Mr. Zelenka closed the public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning the Police Auditor; Amending Sections 2.450, 2.452, 2.454, 2.456 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date for Implementation. Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Carol Berg-Caldwell , Augusta Street, Eugene, said her initial concerns that formation of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) would result in dilution of the oversight system had not been realized. She expressed her appreciation for those who served on the committee and the extent to which they valued the public input process. She urged the council to reconvene the PAORC to address the remaining issues of an appeal process, concurrency of administrative and criminal investigations and complaints against the Police Chief. She wanted the oversight system to be “personality-proofed.” She asserted that the council’s actions against Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds violated the external oversight ordinance MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 3 Public Hearing because the oversight system was independent and she believed requiring the auditor to check in with the City Attorney was in violation of that. She hoped the council would rectify its actions posthaste. Zachary Vishanoff , Eugene, Ward 3, asked if the council was willing to hold the record open for two weeks because he did not think the public was aware of the hearing. He questioned whether there was a willingness to solve the problem and said the public did not know about the existing rules for the Police Auditor, the proposed changes to the rules, the outstanding issues the PAORC might be reconvened to explore and the rationale for the recent censure of the Police Auditor. He felt the public hearing was premature because people had to testify about a moving target. He regretted that those providing testimony were not given five minutes to speak. He urged the council to keep the record open and asked if there would be a second hearing if the PAORC was reconvened. Majeska Seese-Green , Eugene, Ward 7, supported the strongest possible oversight system and urged unanimous adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments. She said the recent Taser case underscored the need for an oversight system, but had heard from many in the community that they had no faith in the current system. She said the PAORC process had some flaws, but the public process and strategies for keeping the public informed were good. She hoped that other groups would use that model. She expressed concern that the proposed amendments from PAORC would be revised without providing the public an opportunity to comment. Councilor Zelenka stated that he was a member of the PAORC and at each of its eight meetings the committee took public comment at the beginning and again at the end. He said if the PAORC was reconvened and recommended further ordinance amendments there would be another public hearing. Councilor Clark assured the public that there was no conflict between the council’s unanimous action with respect to the Police Auditor and the Charter. Pursuant to that action, he and Councilor Zelenka met with the Police Auditor in their role as direct supervisors. He noted that the independent auditor was independent of the City organization, the City Manager and the police department, but not independent of the council; the auditor was an employee of the council. The council’s action put in place supervisory guidelines and protocols for communications and day-to-day operations. He said the auditor was not required to gain the approval of the City Attorney, but there were instances in which the City Attorney acted as an agent of the council and the auditor was asked to work with the attorney to work out protocols in specific situations related to sharing information. Councilor Zelenka commented that the Police Auditor was asked to check in with the council on a specific matter of law, not the entire breadth of the Police Auditor’s duties and responsibilities. He closed the public hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance concerning Solid Waste Administrative Powers and Amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed procedures for providing testimony. Dee Ward , Andersen Lane, Eugene, Ward 7, agreed that there needed to be a solution to funding the City’s street maintenance and repair, but questioned why only garbage trucks were included in the surcharge and not business haulers that used residential streets such as Rexius, Lane Forest Products, medical suppliers, building suppliers, and home repair and freight delivery trucks. She said in addition, individual residents MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 4 Public Hearing used heavy vehicles like recreational vehicles and sport utility vehicles. She said it did not appear to be an all-inclusive, fairly assessed surcharge; the solid waste haulers should not be singled out. David Van Sickle , Grove Street, Eugene, said he was a County resident and the garbage surcharge was actually a pass-through tax and taxation without representation. He bought fuel in the City and paid the gas tax and asked that the City not come to his home and tax one of his purchases. He suggested the ordinance apply only to business inside the City or taxes collected from County residents be forwarded to the County for its road fund. He cautioned that enacting the ordinance could have legal ramifications. Zachary Vishanoff , Eugene, Ward 3, thought the surcharge was part of the sustainability initiative partly because sustainability was a multi-faceted, eco-elitist way of taxing people. He suggested that the council pursued “garbage” public policy and by reforming bad public policy there would be more funds to fix the roads. He pointed to the amount of funds spent on urban renewal, multi-family property tax exemptions, urban villages and increased density and Multi-way Boulevard planning. He urged the council to look at the larger budget issues and priorities and allow citizens to plan their own neighborhoods. He said if the budgeting process was simpler and all the money went into a General Fund, street repairs could be funded first. Brian Bales , Eugene, co-owner of Royal Refuse Service, spoke in opposition to the surcharge. He said it was difficult to connect the amount of garbage generated to road use. Two houses on the same street might have different sized garbage containers and would pay different surcharges, yet the same truck drove by and picked up the garbage. He felt there was no equity in the surcharge. He estimated that his customers would see a $6.00 to $9.00 increase in their monthly garbage bill; comparing that to a two-cent gas tax, it represented 300 to 450 gallons of gas. He said the Bethel School District was a customer and would face a $450 per month increase at a time when schools did not need additional costs. He was concerned that customers would migrate to smaller container sizes, which would decrease his revenues and potentially result in inappropriate disposal of garbage. He said collection and reporting of the tax would also represent a significant administrative burden for his company. He urged the City to consider more equitable and sustainable ways to increase its revenue. Ann Klemp , Blachly, Oregon, said she owned rental property in Eugene and the surcharge would be passed on to her; she could pay the difference or pass it on to her renters. She said 30 percent of her tenants had lost their jobs and several were on disability; it would be very difficult for them to pay an additional amount. She said new taxes should be deferred until the economy had recovered and an equitable tax could be established. John Barofsky , Hubbard Lane, Eugene, Ward 3, spoke in favor of the surcharge. He noted that the City had guaranteed garbage haulers a fair profit when establishing rates and the true costs of hauling garbage included a number of things such as landfill fees, equipment, fuel and damage to infrastructure. He said the council’s subcommittee had explored ways to capture revenue from the other heavy trucks using residential streets but determined it could not be done. He felt it was his duty to pay the costs of hauling garbage and the City should not subsidize paying for street repairs. He said having garbage hauled from his home or business was a service he enjoyed and he should have to pay the true cost of that. He noted that a majority of the General Fund was used for public safety and other services valued by the community and using the General Fund to pay for road repairs would require cuts to those services. He felt the surcharge was a fair approach. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 5 Public Hearing Scott Bales , Airport Road, Eugene, noted that Lane Transit District (LTD) operated more vehicles at greater frequency on residential streets than did garbage haulers. He said there were other heavy trucks using streets, but garbage haulers had been selected for the road repair tax because they had a billing system in place that covered most of the City and there was a perception that garbage trucks did more damage to the streets. He said there were more effective utilities, such as Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), for collection of a tax as more households and businesses had EWEB meters than had garbage service. He said the road repair tax was double taxation because garbage haulers already collected taxes for the County and City. As an example of double taxation, he used an Albertson’s store that currently paid $94.55 to truck garbage to the landfill and once it was there paid another $35.05 to Lane County Solid Waste for the landfill and $29.95 for a system benefit charge. When the new surcharge went into effect it would increase the cost of trucking by almost $5.00 per haul. Robert Tallman , Chevy Chase Street, Eugene, commented that some people would discontinue their garbage service and dump garbage alongside roads or put it in yard debris cans. He said the surcharge was a road tax, not a garbage surcharge because it had nothing to do with garbage; it related to road mainten- ance. He agreed that the City needed funds to maintain and repair roads and suggested that the council consider another gas tax, but this time gain the community’s support. Amanda Dalton , Lake Oswego, Oregon, representing the Northwest Grocery Association, said members were aware of the City’s need for road repair funds and understood the struggles facing cities trying to address serious transportation needs with dwindling dollars. She said the association was committed to supporting jurisdictions in their road funding needs and agreed with Public Works Director Kurt Corey’s proposal of short-term transfers in lieu of a ten percent garbage surcharge utility fee, but remained concerned about the proposed five percent surcharge. She said the surcharge would result in over $180 per month in new taxes for the association’s largest members and the greatest concern with the fee was that it was not part of a comprehensive transportation funding package. She said the surcharge, coupled with a street utility fee based on parking spaces that was under discussion, could result in a significant financial burden on stores. She urged the council to enact one package to address the City’s transportation needs, but if the surcharge was approved it should be a temporary measure with a one-year sunset to allow for a more comprehensive approach to be developed. Jared Mason-Gere , Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Chamber of Commerce, thanked the council and staff for their efforts to identify transportation system funding; however, the chamber member- ship was opposed to the proposed surcharge and believed it was contrary to the City’s desire to support businesses and retain existing jobs. He commended the process related to Bond Measure 2145 to address road repairs and said members would be supportive of similar efforts. Rich Gaston , Wisconsin Street, Eugene, Ward 6, did not object to the design of the tax, but had concerns with how the City prioritized its spending and its need to build trust with taxpayers. He felt there were adequate funds existing to maintain roads, but leadership to make the difficult decisions to rebalance spending across the various priorities was lacking. He noted that the City had purchased a fleet of hand- powered bicycles for people to borrow and the use of Toyota Prius vehicles by City employees. He agreed with the goals behind those purchases, but not with the decision to prioritize those purchases ahead of maintaining roads. It was disingenuous to spend lavishly on pet projects and then come to taxpayers and ask for additional funds to pay for this basic City service. He recommended the City, in order to restore trust and build sustainable support for new taxes: 1) demonstrate it took seriously ongoing budget balancing by resizing the City’s head count and benchmarking it against other cities its size, 2) follow through on the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 6 Public Hearing budget initiative to ask citizens what their priorities were for spending and using that input to develop the budget, and 3) better communicate spending decisions. Scott Smith , Pond Lane, Eugene, Ward 5, said he believed that maintaining infrastructure was a fundamen- tal responsibility of the City and road funding should be a sufficiently high priority that it was supported by the General Fund instead of extra taxes or other fund-raising devices. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing and called for comments. Councilor Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Ruiz that the surcharge would apply only to City residents. He asked staff to determine prior to the next work session the change in the number of people with garbage service after the recent fee increase. He said he was on the council subcommittee on transportation funding and supported the surcharge because there was a direct nexus between certain vehicles and damage to the streets. He said the subcommittee looked closely at other heavy vehicles using the streets, but there were no others using the streets as regularly as garbage trucks. He said there was no practical way to establish the specific street usage of other heavy vehicles and some of those trucks were not operated by Eugene businesses. He said a number of options for funding street repairs were considered and the garbage hauler surcharge seemed equitable and fair because it charged both commercial and residential users. He was willing to consider modifying its impact on school districts. Councilor Clark disagreed with Councilor Zelenka and Mr. Barofsky’s comments. He said the surcharge seemed to be an arbitrary choice for taxing people, using the justification that those trucks alone caused a unique type of damage to the streets. He said it was a bad time to impose additional costs on people, given the current economic situation and federal and regional governments were also looking at additional measures to generate revenue. He asked the staff to compile a list of the new taxes and fees being considered by all levels of government that would impact the residents of Eugene so the council would have a clearer perspective at its work session on the surcharge. Councilor Pryor said he also served on the transportation subcommittee that put forth the surcharge proposal and while it seemed like a reasonable part of an overall funding package at that time, he was impressed by the testimony addressing larger community issues and not just personal impact. He said the City did need to generate a source of revenue to help with the cost of road repair and maintenance; paying for transportation from the General Fund would require will on the council to cut public safety and other services. He said the testimony provided during the hearing would have an influence on his consideration of the surcharge. Mr. Ruiz remarked that the budgeting process included reducing the City’s footprint—headcount, fleet, facilities—as part of the solution to the budget deficit. He said the surcharge was the only new fee or tax being proposed in the FY 2010 budget. Councilor Poling asked what methodology would be used to separate City residents from County residents for purposes of imposing the surcharge in sections of the City like Santa Clara. Mr. Corey replied that the mechanism would be similar to the one under which the garbage haulers currently paid a license fee to the City. He would provide the council with details of that mechanism. Councilor Poling stated he would not support the surcharge because it was an unfair tax. He felt there was a better way to fund the transportation system than singling out an industry because it was an easy target when there were many other heavy vehicles using residential streets. He would be more inclined to support MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 7 Public Hearing the surcharge if there was a guarantee that the funds collected would be used exclusively for residential streets, but was unwilling to place the burden on garbage haulers to support the entire transportation infrastructure. He also saw no relationship between street usage and the amount of garbage that was hauled. Councilor Brown stated that he initially supported the surcharge, but had since developed doubts. He was most concerned about the impact on school districts. He asked how much the gas tax would need to be increased to generate $900,000 annually. Mr. Corey replied that an increase of approximately 1.5 cents would generate that amount. Councilor Solomon remarked that the subcommittee had recommended a comprehensive funding package with five components, but had not been able to garner enough support on the council for most of them. She said during the subcommittee’s discussions the issue was raised that some vehicles could not be charged because they already paid a weight/mile tax. She asked which vehicles paid that tax. Mr. Corey responded that trucks over a certain size all paid the state weight/mile tax, including garbage haulers. Eugene received approximately $2 million dollars annually from that tax. He said the issue was not that the other trucks could not be charged, but rather that the surcharge related to more frequent use of the transportation system. He said imposing a fee on all large trucks would appear to be a vehicle licensing fee and that was not within the City’s authority; the County would need to enact such a funding mechanism. Councilor Pryor mentioned that part of the challenge of transportation system funding was that there were funding options that could be implemented at the County level, but the County had been unwilling to discuss enacting those revenue mechanisms. He noted that those options could help to resolve transportation funding for jurisdictions throughout Lane County. He urged residents to persuade county commissioners to engage in that conversation with cities. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Pryor and noted that the subcommittee had made that recommen- dation to the County, which had not acted upon it. Councilor Clark commented that a ten-cent gas tax for two months could generate enough revenue to solve the problem. 4. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Wastewater and Stormwater Service and Amending Sections 6.411 and 6.421 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. Jared Mason-Gere , Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stated that members supported the proposed ordinance amendment. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing. There were no comments from councilors. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Resolution 4971 Approving the Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. He noted there was no one wishing to testify and closed the hearing. He called for comments from councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 8 Public Hearing Councilor Solomon asked why the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) had not requested the entire $196 million necessary to complete the 38 projects on the list when its borrowing authority was originally approved. Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffier replied that he was not certain, but the initial request for $100 million to support the Facilities Plan was based on engineering estimates and costing, and MWMC hoped that the revenue bonds plus user rates and a revolving loan fund would be sufficient, but there was an expectation that additional borrowing authority might be necessary. Ms. Solomon asked if projects were on budget and on time. Mr. Ruffier replied that the Facilities Plan was re-costed in 2006, going from $144 million to $196 million in estimated costs. He said the experience over the past two years was that projects were coming in on time and under budget. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 9 Public Hearing