Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMInutes - 06/28/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 28, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. As his Honor Mayor James D. Torrey was unable to attend the meeting in person to act as chair, City Council President Bonny Bettman called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Torrey joined the meeting via speakerphone. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Poling announced he had attended the 30th "Scanniversary" celebration at PSC Scanners on June 25 and, on behalf of the mayor, declared Saturday, June 26, 2004, to be "Scanniversary Day." Ms. Taylor asked if the Planning Division informed people seeking permits for homes about the potential that they could use pervious materials for driveway surfaces. Ms. Taylor said a recent article in The Register-Guard stated that upgrades to collector streets were paid for by the City but she did not think that was true in the case of the two streets referred to in the article, Crest Drive and Friendly Street. Those residents would have to pay for the improvements because the street was not being widened. Ms. Taylor called the council's attention to a recent article by Jerry Dietholm regarding the proposed McKenzie-Willamette Hospital site. Noting that the Springfield City Council was contemplating changes to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to accommodate the construction of a new PeaceHealth hospital, Mr. Kelly requested copies of any such amendments. Ms. Nathanson discussed progress on a local multi-agency effort to increase use of the earned income tax credit, indicating that use of this credit was up. She said that considerable publicity was done and fliers were provided to the community through schools and social service agencies. Final numbers were not yet in, but the council would be receiving a report from the head of the Tax Aid Program. Ms. Nathanson said the effort was well worth it. She hoped the effort was sustained in coming years, indicating more outreach to local college students was needed. She thanked the council for its assistance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap~ announced the groundbreaking for the Bus Rapid Transit route on Franklin Boulevard occurring on July 1 at 9:30 a.m. He also announced the July 2 opening ceremonies for the new police forensics building on 2nd Avenue and Garfield Street. Mr. Pap~ reiterated his request for a memorandum regarding the expenses related to the Chiquita site. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated such a memorandum was forthcoming. Mayor Torrey said he toured the ~Big Dig" in Boston and learned that the project was budgeted to cost $2.8 billion but the costs had climbed to $12.8 billion. He said he had secured a video tape of what was planned for the land vacated by relocating the roadway underground that he would share with the council when he returned to Eugene. Mayor Torrey invited the council to join him at the Mayor's Fitness Walk, occurring on July 4. City Manager Taylor noted the council's receipt of the construction closeout information for the library, which indicated $100,000 was left over in the construction budget. He commended those responsible for bringing the vision of a new City library to fruition. Mr. Pap~ acknowledged the wonderful events occurring as part of the annual Bach Festival, the presence of some very talented German performers in Eugene participating in the festival, and encouraged councilors and residents to participate when they could. Ms. Bettman joined in Mr. Papa's remarks and noted the many local performers also taking part in the festival. B. ACTION: Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Fiscal Year 2004-05 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program The council was joined for the item by Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffler. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to ratify the fiscal year 2004-05 Metro- politan Wastewater Management Commission Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Pap~ wanted to pull the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) from the operating budget and postpone action on it until later in the evening, when the council had the opportunity to consider the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's (MWMC) Facilities Plan, as he assumed there was overlap between the two items. In response to questions from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Ruffler confirmed that the budget before the council included portions of the CIP drawn from the 20-year project list included in the Facilities Plan. He further confirmed that adoption of the motion on the table constituted adoption of the first year of the 20-year plan. Mr. Ruffler believed the two actions were interrelated and the council would have to send the budget back to the MWMC with an explanation of what it wanted changed. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that the budget MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 2 Work Session served a different function than the Facilities Plan. The budget authorized the expenditure of funds; if the Facilities Plan was not adopted, he questioned whether it made sense to proceed with adopting the first year of the CIP. MWMC General Manager Susie Smith indicated the CIP for fiscal year 2005 was an integrated mix of projects, both those underway and those in the planning stages. If the CIP was not funded, projects underway would come to a stop, and MWMC staff would come to work on July 1 unable to pay bills or do any work. She said the MWMC, Lane Board of County Commissioners, and the Springfield City Council had all adopted the same budget, and Eugene's failure to do so would trigger a dispute resolution process between the various parties. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the MWMC had not done a good job in regard to outreach about the extensive project list included in the CIP, and he wanted to see more outreach. He said he did not know if the CIP was ~good, bad, or indifferent" but wanted outside verification of its value by an independent evaluator. He was disappointed the plan had come to the council in %uch a rush." Mr. Kelly indicated support for the motion. While he acknowledged Mr. Papa's concerns, he pointed out the City was the fourth party to take action on the budget. He was comforted by the fact that Lane County and Springfield had already examined and approved the budget prior to Eugene taking action. With regard to the concerns expressed by Mr. Pap~ about the 20-year plan, Mr. Kelly suggested the council approve the first year of projects to allow MWMC to proceed now, with the understanding it could object to the list later. He thought it unlikely the MWMC would embark on any projects while the list was in dispute resolution. Mr. Meisner thanked Ms. Smith for her response to questions. He supported the motion but said that should not be interpreted as support for the Facilities Plan. While he agreed with Mr. Kelly that Eugene was only one of several jurisdictions approving the budget, he had to be able to tell his constituents that every effort had been made to ensure the double-digit rate increase represented the most cost-effective and efficient 20- year CIP. He wanted them to be well-informed, but doubted that was the case given the lack of outreach. Ms. Bettman also supported the motion. She had some problems with the proposed rate increase because much of the increase contributed to offsetting the cost of new development to support new growth. She thought the financing mechanism very flawed. However, she believed the systems development charge methodology was better than what existed now, which was a bigger subsidy from ratepayers for new development. Ms. Bettman said she was not able to judge what facilities were the most needed, and was not willing to second-guess the commission in that regard. Mr. Pap~ asked Mr. Poling, the City's representative to the MWMC, to speak to the issue. Mr. Poling concurred with the remarks and Ms. Smith and Mr. Kelly. He said the budget before the council was needed to fund ongoing projects and it did not authorize any new projects past the first year of the CIP. Mr. Pap~ asked if the CIP included projects that would be ongoing into the next fiscal year. Ms. Smith said yes. The amount of funding allowed the commission to provide for contractual obligations for work that would span multiple years. Much of the construction work would happen in the following fiscal year. She did not know the precise budget number for those projects as staff was still in the process of developing MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 3 Work Session estimates. Mr. Ruffler said the proposed CIP for fiscal year 2005 had a mix of projects. They included projects to be completed in the fiscal year and the initiation of project design. That was a standard procedure given the length of time it took to complete projects. Mr. Pap6 asked if the council's failure to adopt the Facilities Plan would cause the MWMC hold off on those projects until it received final approval. Mr. Ruffler believed the council could give its representatives to the MWMC that direction. Mr. Pap6 said he did not have the informational or knowledge basis to be able to justify the rate and systems development charge increases being proposed. He said he had not talked to all the other elected officials from the other jurisdictions. He maintained they shared his concern but did not believe they had the ability to stop the process. He said at some point the council must have the courage to tell the MWMC it had not done a good job with regard to the public outreach that occurred. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Examination of Potential Changes to Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Concerning Special Districts Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle joined the council for the item. He reported that Springfield had initiated an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to allow for the possibility of special districts to provide urban-level services; the details of the amendment were overviewed in a memorandum included in the packet that was prepared by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff, dated May 5, 2004, and entitled Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendment Related to Urban Services Delivery. Mr. Coyle noted questions that had arisen about the issue of funding and distributed the e-mail response that had been sent out. He reviewed the questions and answers. 1. What are cost, time, and resource differences between a Metro Plan amendment initiated by a single jurisdiction and an amendment processed by LCOG? Mr. Coyle said there would be no significant difference between the costs of the two processes. 2. Will LCOG be using regional funds for this effbrt? Mr. Coyle said that LCOG had assured the City that no funds from the Planning Division's annual contribution to LCOG would be used to process the amendment. 3. Has the Lane Board of County Commissioners discussed this topic since May? Mr. Coyle said that the commissioners had not discussed the issue, but hoped to by early fall. Mr. Coyle called attention to an intended motion prepared by staff for Ms. Bettman. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Coyle thanked Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter for their contribu- tions to the materials provided to the council. Ms. Bettman clarified that the first question actually referred to the difference in the process for an amendment initiated solely by just one jurisdiction. She was also concerned about cost, and noted that Commissioner Bobby Green, among others, had requested information about that subject, but she had yet to see it. Ms. Bettman said her interest in holding the work session was because Springfield's proposal represented a fundamental change to the Metro Plan. She termed it the ~mother of all policy issues." Ms. Bettman said the amendment spoke to the underlying premises behind who had the authority to provide services and levy taxes. In the spirit of home rule, Ms. Bettman said she did not object to Springfield pursuing a site-specific amendment to the Metro Plan. She did not object if Springfield wanted to pursue the ability to create special districts to provide its citizens with public safety services, but did not want Eugene to be pulled along in the process by default. She wanted the council to weigh in on the issue sooner rather than later. Ms. Bettman called the council's attention to the ambitious work program associated with the amendment, which did not provide for input from the council until nearly the end of the process. Mr. Kelly agreed what was contemplated by Springfield represented a very fundamental change to the Metro Plan. He said that he concurred with Metro Plan policies stating that cities were the logical provider of urban services, although he could see economies of scale that might be realized from the formation of countywide service districts overseen by the Board of County Commissioners. That could provide greater public accountability than a small district board. However, like Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly did not object to Springfield moving on alone. Mr. Kelly underscored the council's previous direction regarding the topic as reflected in its approval of the Planning Division's work program, when it deleted special districts as a priority. He indicated he would offer the motion prepared for Ms. Bettman to the body with some slight modifications. Mr. Kelly said that given that Eugene would be part of the amendment process in any case, he did not want to spend City money until it was necessary to do so. Mr. Meisner said that sometimes solutions are contemplated without complete consideration of all the ramifications involved. He sympathized with Springfield's interest in pursuing the issue given its interest in forming a fire district. However, he believed what Springfield contemplated, if not site-specific, was a fundamental shift in the Metro Plan, which was a reflection of Senate Bill 100. The proposal was a contradiction of statewide planning rules. While he understood the budget crisis impelling the proposal, Mr. Meisner called for caution. He pointed out that the City required annexation as a condition of development in the River Road/Santa Clara area, which was premised on the City's Urban Services Agreement with the County, which was premised on Metro Plan policy. He feared that if the community did not proceed with caution, the City's actions in that area could be called into question. Mr. Pap~ anticipated the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) would soon be considering significant changes to State planning laws to bring them up to date. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Papd wanted to see more flexibility in the Metro Plan. Because of the difficulty of revising the Metro Plan, Mr. Papd thought different approaches to service delivery needed to be considered. He pointed to the Tualatin Fire District as an example of regional service delivery he would like the local community to be able to replicate. At this time, the Metro Plan did not allow for that, and the community was further constrained by the financial limits imposed by past ballot measure such as Ballot Measure 5 and Ballot Measures 47/50. Mayor Torrey suggested a subcommittee of the local elected officials be brought together to discuss the topic. He did not want to break up the local land use compact if that could be avoided, but thought Springfield had legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed. He did not think it was necessary for the amendment process to take so long. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager not to expend City funds or staff time and resources for an LCOG study of the use of special districts to pro- vide urban services or for processing a Metro Plan amendment initiated by the City of Springfield or Lane County regarding special districts. This motion would not prohibit rea- sonable use of staff time to review and consult with staff of Lane County and Springfield on these matters. Furthermore, any proposed amendments should be specific to Springfield. Mr. Kelly said that while his motion spoke to the staff resources expended by Eugene staff, it did not preclude Springfield staff from picking up the telephone and asking Eugene staff a question. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Papd's long-time interest in the formation of a fire district but pointed out a council majority did not share that interest. Mr. Kelly also acknowledged that the DLCD intended to review Senate Bill 100 and consider possible changes, but that was a two- to three-year process. He thought it was premature to make amendments to the Metro Plan in anticipation of the outcome of that process. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner to change the word %hould" to %hall" in the last sentence of the motion. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the motion should be revised to provide either Springfield or Lane County with the authority to initiate a site-specific amendment. Responding to a question from City Manager Taylor regarding the intent of the motion, Ms. Bettman said the intent of the motion was to narrow the City's scope of involvement in the study to be conducted by LCOG and initiated by Springfield. Ms. Bettman welcomed Commissioner Bobby Green to the meeting. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the motion was restrictive and unfriendly to Eugene's partners in the land use compact. He continued to advocate for sufficient flexibility in the Metro Plan that ensured most urban services were provided by cities but did not foreclose the possibility of other approaches. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that, through the motion, the council would be sending a message that did not reflect its intent. She said if it was council's intent that it did not want to pursue such changes for Eugene, she wished to state it differently. Ms. Nathanson suggested a motion directing the manager not to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 6 Work Session make expenditures in a way that was inconsistent with the council's previous direction in regard to the Planning Division work program. She believed the motion on the floor could be interpreted as being non- cooperative. Mayor Torrey agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He suggested the council accomplish what it wished to accomplish and not attempt to dictate to Lane County or Springfield what they do. Mr. Kelly pointed out that Springfield could initiate any Metro Plan amendments it wished to. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's concerns, he invited alternate wording. He said he included the last sentence in the motion to indicate it was the sense of the council that proposed amendments should be specific to Springfield. Mr. Lidz determined that Mr. Kelly was not attempting to limit the scope of the amendments offered by Springfield. Mr. Kelly said that Springfield could proceed as it wished. Ms. Bettman said the motion she initially suggested was much broader in intent. It had suggested Springfield could move forward in its best interest but Eugene was not interested in changing the policies in the Metro Plan at this time. She thought Eugene would be a better partner to indicate it was not interested in a fundamental change in the way services were provided before Springfield went through an expensive and time-consuming amendments process. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Springfield City Council recently gave its legal counsel direction to examine the question of opting out of the Metro Plan altogether. She asked what would happen if Springfield moved forward with that while the community was going through the amendments process. She reiterated that the responsible thing to do was to provide input early in the process. If Eugene was not to weigh in on the topic at this time, Ms. Bettman suggested the council propose a broader time line for the process that provided for more public input and for the elected officials to have input into the scope of work. The existing time line did not allow for that. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She did not want to spend tax money on the effort. However, she did not think the last sentence in the motion was needed. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion by striking the last sen- tence. Ms. Nathanson reiterated her preference for different language in the motion. She suggested the following alternative wording: Move to inform the City Manager and ask the manager to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan policy amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Ms. Nathanson declined to offer her text as an amendment to the amendment to the motion, preferring rather to vote the motion down. Mr. Kelly endorsed the concepts in Ms. Nathanson's suggested motion. He indicated opposition to the amendment because it did not communicate that the council was not interested in a Metro Plan policy change that applied to Eugene's actions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment because it removed the element of the motion that addressed how such a policy change would address Eugene. Otherwise, the motion was redundant in terms of what the council had done in regard to the Planning Division's work program and neutralized the intent of the motion. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Papd, and Mr. Meisner voting yes. With the concurrence of Ms. Taylor, the second to the motion, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the City Manager to inform Springfield and Lane County that Eugene is not interested in pursu- ing a Metro Plan amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Mr. Kelly determined from City Manager Taylor that he would interpret the motion as minimizing the City's staff time and money spent on the issue of special districts. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the purpose of the motion, City Manager Taylor said the discussion helped clarify the council's position when it approved the Planning Division's work plan. It also gave direction to staff about the sense of the council as it applied to the degree of coordination and interest in the topic of special districts as they related to any solutions concerning Eugene. He thought the motion was helpful. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, although he questioned the inclusion of the phrase ~at this time" as the motion was merely a %napshot in time," and it seemed to cloud the issue somewhat. Mr. Papd said his vote for the Planning Division's priorities was not a vote for forgoing other projects not on the highest priority list. That included an examination of special districts. He did not think the council was uninterested in the question. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Papd thought now was an appropriate time for a break with regard to the %ommand language" governing local land use policies, and the break would help future councils by allowing them to consider other cost-effective service delivery options without going through a lengthy Metro Plan amendment process. Those options might include solutions other than service districts. He noted that the work proposed to be done was to be paid for out of Springfield and Lane County's contracts with the Lane Council of Governments. Mr. Papd said he was unable to support the motion. Ms. Bettman said that at both the Metropolitan Policy Committee and Joint Elected Officials meetings, Springfield and LCOG staff requested direction about the topic from the three jurisdictions. It was her perception the item was moving forward without any body outside Springfield taking definitive action. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a qualitative difference between the council ~informing" and the council ~directing" the manager. Mr. Taylor did not think so; he interpreted both as conveying the sense of the council's direction. Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor how he would interpret the motion in terms of Mr. Papd's issue MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 8 Work Session regarding the Planning Division work program and allocation of funds. Was it implicit in the motion that the council was not interested in the expenditure of resources outside an occasional staff response to a question? She asked City Manager Taylor how he would implement the motion. City Manager Taylor recalled the council's discussion about the Planning Division work program, which he believed allowed for staff work on non-priority items as needed, and the council's work session on special districts as a means to deliver fire and emergency services, at which it agreed to revisit the idea after a year had passed. He did not interpret the motion as being so restrictive it would preclude staff from responding to the council's direction from the work session on fire and emergency services. That effort did not involve Planning Division staff and did not affect the division's work program priorities. He believed it was unlikely staff would do additional work on the subject of special districts as the City had higher priorities and a council majority had expressed no interest in going forward. Ms. Bettman noted the motion specifically mentioned special districts as opposed to changes to Metro Plan policy, which dictated that cities would provide urban services. Mr. Coyle concurred with the comments of City Manager Taylor. He said the City would continue to work with the other jurisdictions on administra- tive issues such as ways to simplify processes. There was no specific work program item related to special districts outside that related to the interest expressed by Springfield and the item related to the fire district question. Ms. Bettman said the Springfield-proposed amendment dealt specifically with the policy governing urban service delivery, and asked that the motion be amended to mention the policies governing urban service delivery. Ms. Nathanson concurred, and offered the following: Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the manager to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan amendment regard- ing special districts or urban service delivery alternatives at this time. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion and thanked Ms. Nathanson for rewording the motion. Ms. Solomon indicated she would be unable to support the motion as amended because it precluded the City Council from pursuing other alternative or creative service delivery methods. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, he said nothing in the motion prevented the council from having a great idea for an urban service delivery alternative and beginning to explore the idea. It merely informed the current process initiated by the City of Springfield. Mr. Kelly thought the amendment being contemplated was premature given the DLCD's review, and that it was dangerous to invite such broad changes to the Metro Plan. He believed that Springfield would want to know what Eugene supported before it proposed an amendment to the other jurisdictions that Eugene could not vote for. The motion made it more likely Springfield would craft an amendment that was focused on Springfield's needs and that could be supported by Eugene. Mayor Torrey determined from City Manager Taylor that the motion did not preclude the manager from offering suggestions for process improvements to the council. Mr. Pap~ said if the council wanted an alternative service delivery system, it would have to seek a Metro Plan amendment. He wanted to see the amendment from Springfield go forward, and hoped it was MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 9 Work Session sufficiently broad to allow for flexibility in Eugene in how urban services were delivered. Mr. Meisner did not think Springfield contemplated an amendment that was sufficiently broad to accomplish what Mr. Papd had discussed. He suggested that in order for Mr. Papd to accomplish his goals, he would need to propose a second amendment and get the council's support. Mr. Meisner said the amendment being proposed was intended to allow Springfield to accomplish the proposal for annexation to the Willakenzie Fire District that had been denied by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Lidz that the State would review any Metro Plan amendments for consistency with statewide goals. Ms. Bettman said the question before the council was who provided the urban services the City was now providing. In times of tight budgets, service districts allowed for the creation of another layer of government able to levy taxes, so it was another way to increase taxes. She said that the fact the municipalities were the provider of urban services was consistent with State land use goals and she believed was the most appropriate way for such services to be provided. Ms. Bettman said if the community expressed a desire for a regional government or overlapping layers of government, the council should move to institute an inclusive and broad-based public outreach process. She said the Springfield proposal represented a unilateral decision by one jurisdiction which, by virtue of existing laws, would drive other jurisdictions along with it unless the Eugene council made a definitive statement at this time. Ms. Bettman said the City should let Springfield and Lane County know where it stood on the issue. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap6 and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 10 Work Session