Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/28/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 28, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown City Councilor Alan Zelenka called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. Mr. Zelenka commented that Mayor Kitty Piercy was lobbying on behalf of the Eugene City Council at the Mayors’ Day Conference in Salem, Oregon. A. WORK SESSION – Water Quality Protected Waterways Water Resource Manager Therese Walch briefly noted the discussions and staff actions previously presented to the council regarding the protection of certain waterways within the City of Eugene. Ms. Walch noted that she had returned to the council to present staff’s findings regarding the possible purchase of conservation easements as opposed to the application of regulatory protections. Ms. Walch noted that the cost estimates for the proposed conservation easements had been included in their agenda packets and would be discussed later in the meeting. Ms. Walch proceeded to give a detailed presentation regarding the background of the local waterways that would be affected by the proposed conservation easements as well as the activities which most directly affected the condition of local waterways. Ms. Walch briefly described elements of the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and the Federal Clean Water Act and noted that they were the two primary policies currently governing the protection of local waterways. She proceeded to give a brief summary of the geographic nature of the Upper Willamette Watershed and its relationship to the City’s urban growth boundary. Ms. Walch referred to a map of several waterways within the watershed areas to illustrate those significant waterways that were being targeted for protection. Ms. Walch noted that the proposed regulatory protections regarding waterway protection would not necessarily improve local water quality but would prevent it from deteriorating any further. Ms. Walch directed the council to the agenda item summary and briefed them on the results of staff’s investigation into the costs and procedures associated with conservation easements. She reported that the estimated acquisition costs, which took into account both land acquisition and administrative fees, were between approximately $25 million and $63 million. Ms. Walch added that the staff’s estimate assumed that any conservation easements would be conducted within federal IRS guidelines. Ms. Walch briefly described communications between staff and representatives of the McKenzie River Trust and The Nature Conservancy organizations with regard to conservation easements and directed the council to a summary of MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 1 Work Session their discussions listed in the agenda item summary. She summarized that, due to the extensive and unusual nature of the amount of conservation easements that were being discussed, both agencies were recommending against the use of the conservation easement mechanism. Ms. Walch directed the council to the proposed amended ordinance materials that had been previously distributed regarding the protection of waterways. Ms. Walch and City Attorney Emily Jerome, responding to a request from Mr. Zelenka, briefly described the revisions to the ordinance for the benefit of the council. Mr. Clark declared that the company he owned occasionally did business with California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. (COBI), a company that had provided testimony which had led to the revision of section 9.4780(h) of the ordinance in question. Mr. Clark added that he did not perceive any real conflict of interest and that he wanted to make the declaration in the interest of transparency. He further maintained that he did not feel it necessary to make any exceptions to the ordinance for COBI simply because they had had their attorney provide testimony during the public comment portion of an earlier council meeting. Mr. Clark expressed that he would prefer to direct the City Manager to take no further action on the matter primarily because the waterway protection measures as demonstrated by Ms. Walch prevented further deterioration but did not actually improve local water quality. He added that it did not seem reasonable to transfer the burden for protection of local waterways onto the 547 property owners who would be obligated under a conservation easement mechanism. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that under the Federal Clean Water Act, the City was legally required to address any violation of total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards. Ms. Taylor felt that while the City’s investigation into the use of conservation easements and amended regulatory protections constituted compliance within the eyes of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), such actions were simply not enough to adequately address waterway protection issues. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that it would be prohibitively difficult to employ conservation easements on a case-by-case basis and that to combine regulatory protections with individual easements among the 547 property owners would be an extremely expensive strategy. Ms. Taylor responded that the cost issue was irrelevant in light of the City’s expenditures toward the creation of a new City Hall facility. She stated that clean water was more important than a new City Hall facility. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, clarified the designations of the waterways being addressed by the ordinance amendments. Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, briefly described the waterway protection measures that had been undertaken by the City of Springfield. Mr. Brown commented that it would be advisable for the City of Eugene to coordinate its water protection efforts with those of Springfield and Lane County. Ms. Walch noted that the proposed conservation easements would only be applicable within the limits of the City of Eugene. Mr. Pryor was concerned that the ordinance as presented did not strike an acceptable balance between a significant level of waterway protection and the rights of property owners. He noted that he was inclined to support the revised MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 2 Work Session ordinance as the potential impact on property owners did not appear to outweigh the benefit to overall water quality for the area. Mr. Zelenka stated that the waterway protection measures under discussion were part of an ongoing effort to comply with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and subsequent TMDL standards. He maintained that the proposed ordinance amendments did not appear to him to be overly burdensome to property owners. He further maintained that the use of conservation easements was an overly expensive strategy and an inappropriate use of regulatory practices. Ms. Walch, responding to a request from Mr. Poling, briefly recapped the previous council discussions regarding the possible regulatory approaches to waterway protection. Mr. Poling asked the City Manager where the funds to implement, monitor and enforce the ordinance provisions would come from. Mr. Ruiz responded that the funds might come in the form of a bond measure or the diversion of funds from another program. Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that property owners affected by the ordinance amendments would have the opportunity to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Ms. Ortiz expressed that certain property owners affected by the ordinance would actually welcome the opportunity to help improve and conserve local waterways. Ms. Solomon indicated that she was not in favor of the amended ordinance and would like to have further public hearings conducted regarding the matter. Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, maintained that the changes to the ordinance were not substantial enough to warrant further public hearings regarding them and were in fact a direct response to the concerns raised at the previous public hearings. Mr. Clark opined that the discussions surrounding the ordinance were not about water quality but rather who would be paying for the regulatory approach dictated by the ordinance. Mr. Clark asked why the waterways under discussion were not covered in staff’s previous Goal 5 work. Mr. Clark commented that there were several things that the City could do to improve water quality along the Willamette that would not affect property owners. Mr. Ruiz noted that the cost to purchase the conservation easements as investigated by staff was not necessarily the financial burden of adjacent property owners. He suspected that the cost of regulatory protections would be significantly less than that. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to return the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Poling reiterated his concern that property owners rights might be infringed upon under the ordinance, but noted that he would be voting in support of Mr. Clark’s motion since property owners could still appeal the regulatory provisions of the ordinance. Ms. Jerome commented that all of staff’s investigative findings with regard to land supply would be kept up to date MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 3 Work Session and promptly communicated to the council. Mr. Clark responded that it would be important for staff to carefully and thoroughly determine the effects any potential litigation might to be initiated might have as a result of the ordinance. Ms. Jerome noted that she was surprised by how few community members had participated in the public hearings regarding the matter, but further noted that there was still a chance that the City might be sued as a result of the ordinance. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clarke’s previously stated motion. The motion passed, 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition). B. WORK SESSION – Economic Development Mr. Ruiz directed the council to the revised Economic Development Statement (EDS) included in the agenda materials and further noted that staff would be asking the council to adopt the EDS. Planning Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Economic Development” and provided copies of same to the council. Mr. Sullivan briefly noted that the presentation included observations regarding the local economy as well as an examination of the City’s existing efforts to assist local businesses. Mr. Sullivan noted that small businesses comprised of between one and four employees made up approximately 60% of the total business population of Lane County. Mr. Sullivan commented that the economic figures listed in his presentation demonstrated a very close correlation between business size and average wages in that as Lane County businesses increased in size their average wages generally decreased. Mr. Sullivan reported that while the City of Eugene and Lane County had historically had a very strong manufacturing base, manufacturing as a percentage of the local economy had dropped from 22% in the 1970’s to 17% in 2000 and 11% currently. Additionally, Mr. Sullivan reported a surge in the service sector as a percentage of the local economy, up from 17% in the 1970’s to 28% in 2000 and 38% currently. He noted that this trend mirrored those of other similarly sized population centers across the country. Mr. Sullivan proceeded to demonstrate statistics regarding inflation adjusted annual average wages and median household incomes from his presentation. He noted that current median household incomes trailed state averages by 17% and national averages by 22%. Mr. Sullivan noted as part of his presentation those more successful business categories with higher wage levels that had been identified by the Lane Workforce Partnership (LWP). Mr. Sullivan briefly described the aforementioned City business assistance and economic development efforts for the benefit of the council. Mr. Ruiz noted that the information provided by Mr. Sullivan’s presentation would be helpful to them in determining a course of action on the proposed EDS as well as any potential community or legislative initiatives that would make use of federal or state stimulus funding assistance. Mr. Ruiz noted that the proposed EDS had two specific goals, to create and retain new jobs in the community and to increase the average median income. He further noted that the EDS generally addressed both immediate and near- term strategies to achieve those goals. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka was concerned about the current 9.5% unemployment rate and noted that the immediate priority for the City should be helping existing local businesses. He noted his support of the EDS before the council and looked forward to the subsequent action plan. Mr. Clark thanked the Mayor and the City Manager for their recent efforts to assess and address the local economic situation and supported Mr. Zelenka’s call for a summit on economic development issues. He averred that a strong manufacturing sector was critical to the long term economic viability of the community and that manufacturing concerns should be a primary component of any local economic development strategies. He also looked forward to a discussion on how the City might motivate private businesses. Ms. Taylor expressed concern for local existing businesses in the struggling economy and further noted her support of any initiatives designed to increase average wages. She noted that while the City could not dictate wages for local businesses, the passage of a living wage ordinance for City and associated workers would set a good example for the local business community. Ms. Taylor noted her opposition to further support of the Metro Partnerships. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that adoption of the EDS would provide policy guidance to both him and staff with respect to how they implemented the City’s business development strategies. Ms. Solomon expressed that she would like to see the EDS have “more teeth” and a more detailed focus on addressing the business needs of the community. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon as to how the EDS would directly benefit local businesses, Mr. Ruiz commented that the EDS was designed to serve only as a policy statement to guide the City’s elected officials. Ms. Solomon was concerned that March 31 might not be a feasible timeline in which to create an action plan with input of community members and asked Mr. Ruiz for further clarification regarding staff’s strategy for creating an action plan out of the EDS. Mr. Ruiz noted that he planned to conduct round table discussions with local business leaders and entrepreneurs and felt that the action plan could be drafted within the time specified. Ms. Ortiz appreciated staff’s work on the EDS and further appreciated that the proposed statement had prompted a discussion on how to improve local economic conditions. She looked forward to supporting the statement and noted that its focus on the creation of a multitude of jobs in the area was admirable. Mr. Poling, referring to portions of Mr. Sullivan’s presentation that had demonstrated shifts between the manufacturing and service sectors, noted that the downward trend in manufacturing had also been affected by a lack of buildable lands and other impediments to manufacturing business expansions in the area. He noted that the City and its leaders could not afford to lose sight of new manufacturing business areas such as the manufacturing of solar panels and other energy conservation products. Mr. Brown asked if there had been movement in recent negotiations to have a solar panel manufacturing business take over the facility being vacated by Hynix. Mr. Ruiz noted that he was not currently aware of Hynix’s specific plans for their vacated facility and that the current status of their negotiations with regard to any future businesses in the space was indeterminate. Mr. Pryor understood that the EDS did not represent a specific work or action plan and that such a plan would be forthcoming. He appreciated that while the statement was short on detail it sent a clear signal to businesses and the public that the economic viability of the area was a high City priority. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka noted as an addendum to Mr. Sullivan’s economic presentation that government as a percentage of the local economy had decreased significantly over the past few decades. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the policy direction provided by the EDS as well as its direction to provide the council with a specific economic action plan by March 31. He suggested that an economic summit with the City’s local partners as well as forums with consulting business professionals might be beneficial to the creation of the action plan. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the adoption of the EDS did not constitute acceptance of the final report and recommendations of the Mayor’s Committee on Economic Development. He noted that the report was merely part of the background information on the EDS provided by staff to council. Ms. Taylor added that she did not support certain portions of the EDS supporting information listed in the agenda item summary. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Ruiz to confirm that adoption of the EDS did not constitute any specific direction to staff other than the discussion of economic issues and the generation of the action plan. Mr. Ruiz reiterated that the EDS was only designed to provide policy direction to staff regarding economic concerns. Mr. Clark reminded the council that Mr. Ruiz had a great deal of experience with job creation programs such as the Fresno Jobs Initiative in his former position. Mr. Clark noted that he would like to foster a discussion on any economic initiatives that would help private businesses act quickly to stimulate the local economy. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the proposed City of Eugene Mayor and City Council Economic Development Statement. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0 Ms. Zelenka adjourned the meeting at 1:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 6 Work Session