Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/27/09 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 27, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, 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. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed procedures for providing comments. Daniel Cooper, Eugene, spoke to the council on several issues of concern and thanked them for their service to the community. Joe Collins, Eugene, concluded his comments begun at an earlier meeting regarding residents of the Crest Drive neighborhood who were complaining about the cost of fixing their streets. He said even Councilor Betty Taylor said she had been complaining for years about street assessments and asked whether she or the Crest Drive residents had complained for others in the community facing the same situation. He did not want to see anyone lose their home over the situation and felt that City officials would be glad to meet with owners to review their financial situations, then make exceptions for the needy among them. He said the council had more important things to consider than street assessments, such as a poor police department and high unemployment. He said things in the downtown had not improved since he moved to Eugene 15 years ago. Zachary Vishanoff, Ward 3, Eugene, suggested that the City explore establishing a video link to Salem to provide citizens with access to legislative hearings and the ability to provide testimony without having to travel to Salem. He pointed out that Lane County had done something similar for Florence residents who wanted to participate in Board of County Commissioner meetings. He said the City Club had tentative approval for a program about returning to the river, which he hoped would focus on using the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) building as a new City Hall. He hoped that Mayor Piercy and Councilor Mike Clark would participate in the program, which would take place sometime in October or November. Ed Monks, Old Dillard Road, Ward 7, Eugene, executive director of Catholic Community Services (CSS), th stated that the organization currently owned a facility at 7 Avenue and Van Buren Street. His remarks related to Item 2D on the Consent Calendar. He said some time ago CSS applied for funds to rehabilitate that facility, but it became clear that was not feasible and the agenda item related to reprogramming those th funds initially allocated for renovation to acquisition of a new facility on West 6 Avenue. He urged the council’s support and thanked Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) staff for their professional and efficient assistance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 1 Mayor Piercy closed the public forum. She thanked those who spoke and called for comments from the council. Councilor Clark thanked those who spoke and expressed his interest in discussing the possibility of a City Club program related to the river. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of February 11, 2009, Work Session; February 11, 2009, Executive Session; February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting; March 9, 2009, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of 2009/10 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs D. Reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant Funds E. Resolution for Authorizing Eminent Domain for Condemnation (Delta Ponds Bridge) F. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of February 25, 2009, March 4, 2009, and March 11, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Clark pulled Item E from the Consent Calendar. Councilor Ortiz pulled Item F from the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar, with the exception of items E and F, was approved, 8:0. Councilor Clark asked why the City wanted to initiate eminent domain proceedings for acquisition of property for the Delta Ponds bridge project. City Engineer Mark Schoening explained that there was some urgency because a portion of the project was financed with federal economic stimulus funds and construc- tion needed to commence in the summer and provide jobs. He said if Oregon was able to obligate its entire stimulus funding there was a possibility that it could gain funds from states that did not entirely obligate their allocations. He said the project was also funded with federal transportation enhancement and earmark dollars. Councilor Clark remarked that he had received many comments from citizens about the bridge. He understood the need to create jobs, but there were other ways to cross the Delta Ponds area and the project had the feeling of a “bike bridge to nowhere.” He asked if there were other options for use of the funds, given the City’s backlog of street repair projects and other transportation needs, which would also create jobs. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to postpone the item until April 29 in order to investigate options more fully before instigating eminent domain proceed- ings. Mr. Clark felt it was incumbent on the council to assure that it had explored options for using the money for higher priorities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Schoening said the $2.25 million in stimulus funds were awarded to the City in a competitive process at the state level, which meant there were other projects that were not funded. He said the Oregon Transporta- tion Commission (OTC) had the authority to obligate those funds and he could not imagine a scenario in which the City of Eugene could use the funds for any other purpose. He said the $1 million in transportation enhancement funds was also awarded through a competitive OTC grant process in which other projects were not funded. The $2.8 million earmark from the last federal transportation bill was specifically for the Delta Ponds bridge project and it would likely take congressional action to make them available for another use. Mayor Piercy commented that if the City changed its mind about the project, the funds could be reallocated to another jurisdiction and the 85 jobs associated with the project would be lost to the community. Councilor Brown asked why property owners were unwilling to sell. Mr. Schoening said he was optimistic that the City could reach an agreement with the property owners, but it was a matter of timing. He said in one instance a property owner and tenant both had rights to compensation. In response to questions from Councilor Brown, Mr. Schoening explained that the owner and tenant would be compensated through rent for the staging area during construction; the portions to be acquired were not currently being used. Councilor Zelenka asked how long the project had been in the planning process. Mr. Schoening replied that the project had been in Trans Plan since 1986 and the concept was in bicycle plans before that; it had been in the City’s capital improvement program for four or five years. Councilor Zelenka remarked that the project would create 85 jobs, plus the purchase of materials from local businesses. Mr. Schoening agreed and added that unlike paving projects, which employed a narrow segment of the construction industry, the project would provide a wide range of opportunities for many different types of contractors. Councilor Zelenka asked if the property owner would be paid fair market value. Mr. Schoening said the City would pay fair market value for an easement. Councilor Zelenka asked what constraints were placed on use of the funds. Mr. Schoening said two of the funding sources related to the federal transportation enhancement program, required that a certain portion of funds were spent on projects such as bike paths and historic structures. The remaining funds represented a specific earmark in federal legislation for the project. He confirmed that the funds could not be repro- grammed by the City for another use. Councilor Pryor observed that citizens were often unhappy that restricted funds could not be used for other purposes. He was willing to take two days to explore whether all options for the funds had been explored, but he did not expect there would be a different outcome at the April 29 meeting. Councilor Poling indicated he would not support the motion because it had been planned for 23 years, the funds had gone through a vetting process and granted over a period of time and he did not want to risk losing the funds. He had also received complaints from citizens about the project, but thought that it would enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety in the area and therefore supported the project. Ms. Solomon asked if it was the City’s intent to have the ability to threaten property owners with eminent domain to force them to negotiate. Mr. Schoening said the City had been working with the property owner for some time and the resolution would provide some certainty about acquiring the necessary property rights MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 3 to award a construction contract. His goal was to complete negotiations within a month and avoid any legal proceedings related to eminent domain. Ms. Solomon asked if the City would be at a disadvantage if it initiated proceedings first because of a recent ballot measure. Mr. Schoening agreed that the ballot measure did put governments at more financial risk to go through eminent domain. Mayor Piercy cautioned against taking the matter to Congressman De Fazio. She understood that there were people who wanted other projects to take priority, but the City had applied under specific funding categories, including one that created jobs and stimulated the economy, and should use the funds as planned. Councilor Clark understood the value of creating jobs, but noted there were other higher priority projects that could accomplish the same goal. He did not feel the bridge project was the best way to spend $6 million. Councilor Ortiz agreed with Mayor Piercy’s comments and did not want to delay a decision on the matter. She asked what would happen with the funds if they were not spent on the designated project. Mr. Schoening said the funds would be returned to the State for reallocation. Councilor Zelenka determined that the City had asked Congressman De Fazio for funds earmarked for the Delta Ponds bridge project. He would not support the motion. Councilor Taylor agreed with Mayor Piercy’s comments. She noted that the project had been planned for a long time and the council should not delay its decision. Councilor Pryor said he supported Councilor Clark’s concerns in principle, but he had been persuaded by comments from other councilors and would not support the motion. The motion to postpone failed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting yes. Item 2E on the Consent Calendar was approved, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting no. Councilor Ortiz asked staff to elaborate on the status of legislation to curb metal theft. Intergovernmental Affairs Manager Brenda Wilson replied that Senate Bill 570 had been passed by the Senate and referred to the House for consideration. She noted that the entire Lane County legislative delegation supported the bill. Councilor Ortiz commented on the problem that metal theft was in the community and acknowledged the work of the legislative delegation to pass legislation to address the situation and thanked them for their efforts. Item 2F on the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions on Legislative Policy from April 15 and April 22, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the IGR Commit- tee’s majority position of Prior 2 Oppose on HB 2865 related to collection of sys- tem development charges by local governments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Wilson believed the bill was dead, although it was in the Revenue Committee. She said the bill had not yet had a hearing and April 29 was the dead bill deadline. She said there was always a chance that the language could be placed in another bill and asked the council for direction. Councilor Poling moved to amend the motion to change the position to Priority 3 Support. The motion died for lack of a second. The main motion passed, 5:3; councilors Poling, Solomon and Brown voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the IGR Commit- tee’s majority position of Monitor on SB 519 prohibiting employers from taking adverse employment action related to religious or political matters. Ms. Wilson stated that SB 519 had passed out of committee that morning with an amendment that clarified it did not prohibit mandatory meetings of executives or their administrative staff to discuss issues related to religious or political matters. She noted the bill was introduced on behalf of a labor organization to prohibit anti-union meetings and a requirement to attend those meetings with adverse action against employees who chose not to participate. She said there would be a minority report on the bill. She said that concerns had been expressed about the bill’s unintended consequences and potential preemption of the National Labor Relations Act. Mayor Piercy asked if the latest version of the bill would still present a problem for employers. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that a short discussion of the implications by legal counsel was included in the agenda packet on page 181, but he was not certain if the recent changes to the bill had been reviewed. He would request a review if the council wished. Councilor Ortiz expressed concern with the bill and felt that a Monitor position was not adequate to assure that employees’ rights were not in jeopardy. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson explained that the amendment clarified that the bill would not prohibit mandatory meetings of executives or administrative staff to talk about issues related to the bill, but did not address any of the concerns raised by legal counsel. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Ortiz regarding protection of employee’s right to refuse to participate in things they objected to. He would support a motion to oppose. Mayor Piercy asked if a Monitor position would convey the council’s wish to see those employee protections in place, but within the realm of what it was legal for the City to do. Ms. Wilson said she would convey whatever message the council wished. She recommended a Neutral position for that message. Mayor Piercy said she wanted to express strong support for protection of people in the work place, while protecting the City against legal problems. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to substitute a motion to adopt a Neutral position on SB 519. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 5 Councilor Pryor understood the IGR Committee’s intent with a Monitor position, which meant the bill was being watched, and if there was movement a position to Support, Oppose or Neutral could then be taken. He was inclined to stay with a Monitor position until there was a need to take a specific position. Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Pryor that a Monitor position was appropriate; a Neutral position could imply the City did not care about the issue. Mayor Piercy supported a Monitor position and Ms. Wilson could convey the council’s message that it was interested in work place protections of employees’ rights, but did not want to jeopardize the City’s position. Ms. Wilson pointed out that she did not lobby on legislation or discuss it with legislators when the council adopted a Monitor position; she simply monitored and reported on its status. She would lobby a bill when there was a Neutral position and convey to the legislature whatever message the council directed. Mr. Clark indicated he would support the original Monitor position to protect the City. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Zelenka and Ortiz voting yes. The main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Ortiz voting no. Mayor Piercy clarified that the council’s direction was to do nothing with respect to the bill except report back on its status. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the IGR Commit- tee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the April 15 and April 22 IGR bill reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those IGR meetings. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: Resolution 4971 Approving the Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4971 approving the issuance of additional revenue bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission; and providing an effective date. Mr. Klein directed the council to page 210 in the agenda packet and stated that the blank sections should be completed as follows: H. The Commission and its financial advisor recommended that approximately $20 million… N. A public hearing was held before the City Council on April 20, 2009 regarding the issuance by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission of up to $100 million… Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of up to $100 million… Councilor Zelenka and Councilor Clark accepted the additions as part of the mo- tion. The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 6 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4997, an ordinance concerning rental housing standards. Councilor Clark thanked those who testified on the matter and those who served on the committee. He felt the ordinance represented a good compromise and protection for all parties. He was particularly pleased that it would not be necessary to add staff and potential fee reductions would be considered if excess revenue was collected. Councilor Poling stated he would support the ordinance because it addressed the specific type of mold related to faulty plumbing or problems with the building and not just bad housekeeping. Councilor Zelenka also thanked the committee for its work on a well-crafted, thoughtful recommendation. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Waste Administrative Powers and Amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4999, an ordinance concerning solid waste administrative pow- ers. Councilor Clark stated that it was a bad idea to increase taxes at this time and the action was arbitrary and would place an undue burden on many residents. He urged a no vote on the motion. Becky Carlson, Public Works Department, reviewed the responses to public input and questions contained in Attachment A of the agenda item summary. She reminded the council that it was a surcharge on garbage haulers, not customers, and there was no requirement that the surcharge be passed on to customers. She said the surcharge would only apply to customers within the City limits and those properties were already identified by haulers. She also reviewed responses related to administration and collection of the surcharge, the impact on haulers revenue and impact on school districts. She noted that the council could consider a waiver or exemption for school districts, but that could create legal problems in defending the surcharge. She said a more appropriate mechanism for mitigating school district impact would be to develop options in the budget process to offset or reduce the increased fees using other City funding sources. She said a 100 percent offset to the schools would require about $19,000 annually and the City Attorney had been asked to prepare an amendment for the council’s consideration if they were interested in those options. Mayor Piercy asked if using garbage hauler fees to fund road repair and maintenance was an unusual practice. Ms. Carlson replied that many jurisdictions in Oregon levied fees on garbage haulers and used the revenue for a number of general government purposes, including road repair. Councilor Pryor remarked that the Council Committee on Transportation Funding Solutions had discussed the surcharge extensively and he was comfortable with the concept, but the timing of an additional fee was a concern because of the economy. He was also concerned with enacting a fee before it had been discussed as MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 7 part of the City’s budget process. He preferred to delay action until other options had been explored by the Budget Committee. Councilor Zelenka spoke to the need for a comprehensive funding package to address maintenance and repair of roads. He said the issue had been discussed at length by the committee and many funding options examined. He said the committee had recommended a package of funding options, one of which was the garbage hauler surcharge. He asked staff to discuss the reasons that a surcharge was not expanded to include other heavy vehicles. Ms. Carlson said the committee had discussed expanding the surcharge to other heavy vehicles, but found a broader fee structure would be problematic because it could be seen as a vehicle registration fee, which only counties could impose, along with the administrative difficulty and expense of identifying and assessing a fee on all categories of heavy vehicles. Councilor Zelenka said the amount of deferred maintenance was continuing to grow and the condition of streets was getting worse. He did not see where other funds could be obtained in the budget process, given the City’s financial shortfall. He supported amendments related to school districts and a sunset clause to allow a review of the ordinance in one year. Councilor Brown asked if garbage haulers would be compensated for the labor and time involved in collecting the surcharge. Ms. Carlson said there had been no discussions of that and the City would need more information on what the haulers perceived as the incremental effort involved. She said the calculations would be made on the same basis of revenue as the current licensing fees and it was the City’s goal to make the process as easy as possible. She said compensation could be considered in the administrative rule process. Councilor Brown agreed with Councilor Pryor’s suggestion to consider the matter during the Budget Committee’s deliberations. City Manager Jon Ruiz said there would need to be a discussion because failure to adopt the ordinance meant there would be a $900,000 hole in the road operations and maintenance budget. He said the proposed budget contemplated having the surcharge revenue available. Councilor Clark agreed that the City needed to go through a priority setting discussion before the council considered adding or increasing fees. He said the garbage haulers would pass the surcharge along to customers and it was a bad time to impose additional costs on residents. He was particularly sensitive to the impact on schools and concerned that if exceptions were made for them there would be requests for exceptions for others who might qualify for special treatment. Councilor Ortiz said she could not have supported a ten percent surcharge, but would support it at the five percent level. She asserted that councilors were elected to make difficult decisions and she did not want to refer the surcharge to the Budget Committee; the public expected the council to work on the problem of funding the transportation system. She agreed that the timing was not good, but did not think the surcharge was unreasonable. She pointed out that currently construction costs were less expensive and it was a good time to continue to work on roads. She urged the council to support the ordinance. The motion failed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Zelenka and Ortiz voting yes. Mayor Piercy asked the council to indicate if there was a majority of members who wanted the surcharge discussed within the context of the budget process. Councilor Solomon stated that she wanted to discuss the matter at the Budget Committee level and asked that staff provide information on the garbage hauler system, including licensing process and fees and MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 8 guaranteed profit. She said it felt somewhat like double taxation on haulers. She also wanted a Budget Committee discussion of a gas tax as some people had indicated they would support a gas tax in lieu of the surcharge. Councilor Pryor indicated he wanted to have a more extensive discussion of the surcharge and the broader issue of the City’s position with respect to transportation funding. He said there needed to be a consistent set of values, direction and priorities upon which to build a budget. He said the deferred maintenance backlog resulted from a systematic lack of consideration for transportation funding over many years. Councilor Clark emphasized that there had to be a larger discussion of City priorities. He said fixing the transportation system was one of the highest priorities, second only to public safety, but felt the surcharge was an inappropriate way to fund it. Councilor Ortiz expressed her disappointment that the ordinance did not pass. She asked if reducing the budget by $900,000 would result in employees being laid off. Mr. Ruiz said the result was a $900,000 gap in road operations and the maintenance budget, but was not certain if that would result in layoffs. Mayor Piercy summarized that councilors had not rejected the concept of a garbage hauler surcharge, but wanted to have that discussion within the budget process. Councilor Zelenka asked that Budget Committee members be provided with a copy of the Council Committee on Transportation Funding Solutions report. He hoped the budget discussions would also include a street utility fee, one of the funding recommendations that he had supported. He said that streets had to be repaired and if no other revenue sources were available, that meant massive cuts to other services the City provided and the community valued. Councilor Clark stressed that public safety—fire, police and emergency medical services—was his highest priority for the City; transportation and appropriate funding was his second highest priority. He said the public expected the council to make hard decisions about priorities within the framework of available funds. Councilor Poling reiterated his opposition to a garbage haulers tax. Councilor Pryor remarked that it was a momentous decision that directly addressed community values and priorities. He said councilors would approach the matter from their individual perspectives and it would be a difficult discussion, but that was what they were elected to do. Mayor Piercy encouraged councilors to be respectful of each others’ values and priorities during the budget process. 7. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Wastewater and Stormwater Service and Amending Sections 6.411 and 6.421 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5000, an ordinance concerning wastewater and stormwater ser- vice. Mr. Klein clarified that the ordinance Section 3 transferred funds and sections 1 and 2 were forward-looking and put into place the ability to use the funds in the same way in the future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 9 The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 10