Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 06/09/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 9, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Solomon participated via telephone hook-up. A. WORK SESSION: Prioritizing and Allocating State and Federal Transportation Funds City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, reporting that Public Works staff was present to discuss the prioritization and allocation of State and Federal transportation funds. Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided a PowerPoint presentation on the topic, focusing his remarks on State funds allocated through the Oregon Transportation Commission through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process, and the federal funds allocated by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPa) process. Mr. Corey briefly noted the sources of revenue for road projects. He described the STIP as Oregon's four- year transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He reviewed the various bodies and agencies that were involved in the review of the STIP, which at the local level included the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), a federally mandated staff committee, and the MPC. The local MPa is the body responsible for overseeing regional transportation planning and MPC is responsible for the allocation of Surface Transpor- tation Plan - Urban (STP-U) funds and for providing policy guidance to the MPa. Mr. Corey briefly noted the planning documents that drove project nominations for funding, including the local CIP, the capital budget, and refinement plans. At the regional level, those documents included TransPlan, the STIP, the MTIP, and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Mr. Corey called the council's attention to a flowchart illustrating the STIP review and adoption process. Mr. Corey reviewed the STP-U process. He briefly noted the make-up of the MPC, which included representation from Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, Coburg, Lane Transit District, and the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District. Mr. Corey called the council's attention to a spreadsheet entitled STP-U Fund A/location by MPC for Fiscal Years 2004-06, which contained a list of projects by category. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman commended the staff presentation. She explained that she had requested the work session because of her concern that there was no opportunity for council review of the funding priorities. She noted that the Lane Board of County Commissioners acted as the local Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) and made the final decisions on the STIP. She emphasized the complexity of the process and maintained that currently, because of that complexity, there was no way for a citizen to weigh in on those funding priorities except through their own council. Ms. Bettman further noted that although the council voted to prioritize maintenance and preservation projects for any available flexible funds, the STP-U funding was flexible money but the MPC had not directed all of the funding to preservation and maintenance. In part, she said, that was because any single jurisdiction represented at the MPC had veto power over any motion considered by the MPC. That gave other jurisdictions authority over the money to be spent within the Eugene city limits. She further expressed concern about what she believed was the inequity of the MPC's composition, which included two represen- tatives for each jurisdiction in spite of the population differences between Springfield and Eugene, and in spite of the fact the Lane Transit District Board of Directors was appointed and not elected. Mr. Kelly said that the council did not have the opportunity to consider the metropolitan STIP priorities in the same way that the Springfield City Council did. He advocated for such an opportunity for the council to review the staff-generated project list given the dollars that were involved. Mr. Kelly also expressed concern about the complexity of the process and the many acronyms employed and expressed a wish there was a more transparent funding process. He encouraged staff to think about ways to accomplish that. Mr. Pap~ said it appeared from the project list that a considerable amount of money was directed toward preservation. Ms. Bettman said most were bicycle projects. Mr. Pap~ said that better than half the dollars appeared to be going toward preservation. Mr. Corey said that several road preservation projects were not funded. In terms of increasing the efficiency and transparency of the project, Mr. Pap~ suggested the region consider forming an ACT, and asked why that had not been considered. Mayor Torrey deferred that question for a later response. Mr. Meisner asked how Ms. Bettman's concerns about representation could be addressed. Mr. Carlson said it would require a change to the MPC's bylaws and the concurrence of the parties to the agreement to change the committee's representation. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the makeup of the MPC in terms of transportation funding. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the MPC was already constituted in several different ways with different representation to address different metropolitan planning and transportation functions. Mr. Meisner asked if the parties to the MPC had veto power over bylaw changes. Mr. Carlson said yes. There must be one affirmative vote from each of the three general purpose govern- ments for a motion to change the bylaws to pass. He termed the current structure a delicate balance of power between the three main purpose governments. Mr. Meisner expressed hope the MPC would consider the issue of changes to the representation of the committee for transportation funding decisions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor said that the reason the region had no ACT was because past MPC members had been very opposed to establishing one. She believed the region was the only one in Oregon which lacked an ACT. She concurred with Ms. Bettman's concern that Eugene did not have an opportunity to review projects prior to their being proposed for inclusion in the STIP. Mayor Torrey said the Portland metropolitan area and a region in eastern Oregon did not have ACTs. He said the Lane Board of County Commissioners did not want an ACT, and until it did, there would be no ACT. With regard to the veto situation, he concurred with the summary provided by Mr. Carlson. He said the local area needed a group that worked together for the general good of the local transportation system. He believed it was in the interest of all for the partners to work together to make the system work better so the veto situation did not arise. He suggested that could be accomplished by improved communication between the parties could involved could reach a consensus. Mayor Torrey said he recently attended a Local Officials Advisory Committee meeting in Salem where committee members discussed the potential of making Highway 126 an express freight way at some time in the future, which raised a concern about ;;SBA" and ;;UBA" designations on that highway from 1-5 to Florence. He asked Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments to provide him with information about what those acronyms meant. He added that the designation of that highway, if it occurred, would have tremendous implications for the local transportation system. Ms. Nathanson believed the council was talking about both a decision system and a transportation system. She pointed out that while Springfield had veto power over Eugene in theory, the opposite was also true. In regard to the decision system, she said that how representatives to the MPC decided to vote was either in accordance with the direction of their governing body or their personal convictions. She said it appeared there was frustration with the decision system, but changes to the system would have impacts to the transportation system. She suggested that at worse, a jurisdiction could promote and construct a roadway that ended at the city limit. Ms. Nathanson believed the issue was not only who got what dollars, but about constructing a system that made sense that worked to move people around the metropolitan area. Ms. Nathanson said the system needed to be simplified and made easier to understand while ensuring no jurisdiction makes a decision that was detrimental to the community as a whole. For that reason, she thought the other jurisdictions should be able to offer comment on Eugene's priorities, and vice versa. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that all project lists or funding alloca- tions for projects within the city of Eugene or the Eugene urban growth boundary (UGB) generated through the TPC for MPC/MPO approval shall first be reviewed and approved by the Eugene City Council before the TPC recommendations are re- viewed for approval by the MPC/MPO, including review of regional projects in which the City is a stakeholder. Ms. Bettman said while it was true the council had approved the many documents that informed the list, she pointed out those documents included many more projects than would be built, and they were malleable and could be quickly amended. Citing the courthouse area projects as an example, Ms. Bettman said sometimes projects were not expected and the process must be sufficiently flexible to ensure those projects could be considered for funding. She wanted to create a process where the council had a say in where the priorities were placed. That was consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions. The MPO coordinated its MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 3 Work Session activities based on the priorities of the jurisdictions, and she wanted to be able to provide input on the priorities in a timely way. Mr. Meisner advocated for the visual display of motions offered to the body. He indicated support for the motion. Mr. Kelly also supported the motion. He agreed with the comments made by Ms. Bettman. He thought the motion improved the process. Ms. Taylor also supported the motion. She thought the council could make time for the needed review. Mr. Pap~ questioned the inclusion of the reference to projects in which Eugene was a stakeholder as it seemed very broad to him. He suggested that Eugene was a stakeholder in everything that occurred in the community. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Corey that the Springfield council reviewed the project list but under its operating agreements, it did not take action on the list. Ms. Nathanson asked what criteria made the City a stakeholder in a project. She asked if the intent of the motion was that the City Council would review and approve the project list. Ms. Bettman said yes. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Corey for the presentation. She asked if the review meant those projects were "set in stone," and how it affected the council's ability to reallocate funding "on the fly." Ms. Solomon said while she was inclined to support the motion, it had a certain element of micromanaging and seemed to duplicate what the MPC already did, adding more complexity to a process the council wanted to make more simple. Mayor Torrey was also was concerned about overreaching. He did not want to take away the City's MPC representatives' ability to negotiate and engage in give-and-take at MPC meetings. He supported the original intent of the motion as he had viewed it earlier in the week, but was concerned by the added language. He did not want MPC representatives to be bound by a list. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly thought the council's concerns were addressed by the motion. He said the review would be limited to Eugene projects. That review would inform the MPC representatives of the council's position. Mr. Kelly said the MPC representatives might not to choose to follow the direction of the council. In regard to the added phrase, he emphasized the council would only be doing a review. In light of the limited dollars for transportation funding, it made sense for the Eugene council to have an opportunity to point out imbalances in regional funding or to identify projects outside the city limits that might negatively impact Eugene. Regarding Ms. Solomon's concerns about the council's ability to change things "on the fly," he said that because the council had the need to make such changes, he found value in the motion. It did not prevent change, but merely meant the list would merely return to the council for more discussion. City Manager Taylor interpreted the motion as directing the staff to return to the council with a project list that the council must review and approve. Mr. Kelly concurred that was the case for projects within MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Eugene's jurisdiction. City Manager Taylor determined that Mr. Kelly envisioned the project list being reviewed perhaps once or twice yearly by the council. Ms. Taylor said the council's review was merely a chance for discussion before the MPC discussed the list, and it could lead to improvements in the final product. No power was removed from the MPC. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's comments. She said staff had much discretion in prioritizing the project list, and the review gave the council the opportunity to review the list and possibly veto projects depending on the needs of the community. She said the intent of the motion before the body was identical to the motion she had sent out earlier via e-mail, but was redrafted by legal counsel to be more explicit. She did not expect the council to be making many changes, but believed the changes in the process made the council more accountable over the long-term. City Attorney Jerome Lidz apologized if his motion had created confusion. He asked if the council would review and comment on the list or review and approve the list. Mayor Torrey interpreted the motion as stipulating the council would review and approve Eugene projects. He said the review would provide a statement of the council's position to the City's MPC representatives, who would then attempt to represent that position at the MPC. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Schwetz described the Springfield review process. Mr. Pap6 continued to be concerned about the impact of the motion as it applied to the City's veto power at the MPC. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Update on 1998 Parks and Open Space Bond Measure and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan The council was joined by Andrea Riner of the Parks and Open Space Division, who provided an update on the implementation of the 1998 parks and open space bond measure and an update on the current compre- hensive planning process, which was nearing its end. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Nathanson, the chair of the Mayor's Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee, said the council was aware of the importance of parks and open spaces to the community but less sure about the funding of new parks amenities. The City needed to determine what it could afford, and the advisory committee would discuss funding strategies after August 2004. There was still much to be done to reconcile the demand with the funding. Ms. Nathanson noted the City was still implementing the 1998 bond and had about two more years of projects to complete. The taxpayers would be paying off that bond for 14 more years. Systems development charge funds had been accumulating and would also be spent on parks projects. Many ideas for new facilities had been suggested to the committee but they had not yet been prioritized; that effort would begin at the next committee meeting. The committee must prioritize what needed to happen, and where, as money became available. Ms. Nathanson reminded the council that when it reviewed potential bond projects, a major bond measure for parks was projected for 2006. She noted the committee's support for a 2004 bond measure as expressed in an April 2004 motion, and reported that decision was affirmed by approximately half the committee at the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 5 Work Session last meeting. About half the committee thought the measure was premature. She noted the inclusion of a letter to the council from the committee in the packet. Ms. Nathanson asked about the City's ability to survey voters about the issue. City Manager Taylor indicated a survey regarding parks and open spaces, as well as the civic visioning exercise, was in process. Ms. Taylor said property acquisition for parks was her top priority. She asked why it took so long to develop Milton Park and suggested the neighbors be updated on the topic. She also questioned the tree cutting in the park. Ms. Taylor asked about the status of projects in Amazon Park. Ms. Riner indicated that a variety of projects, including both sports fields and natural areas, were contemplated. She said improvements to the dog parks, trails, and multi-purpose field were proposed. Ms. Taylor asked if the council still had the ability to influence the design. City Manager Taylor said no. Mr. Meisner was pleased to see that the advisory committee was discussing maintenance and operations. He asked if that discussion was focused on new acquisitions alone, because if that was the case, he was concerned. He noted the City's past shift of the costs of parks maintenance onto the Stormwater Fund, which he did not think appropriate. He hoped the committee did a comprehensive review of all maintenance and preservation funding needs and discussed sources of funding. With regard to the time it was taking to complete Milton Park, Mr. Meisner suggested that the City consider increasing its parks planning staff either through contract or by hiring temporary employees to implement new projects. He said residents of the Santa Clara area and those who paid the parks SDC and bonds were frustrated by the delay in the planning process. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Riner that the City had compared its facilities to other Northwest cities and Oregon communities and it appeared it was slightly above average. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could be flexible with regard to the standards for neighborhood parks. He said he received requests for restrooms in Oakmont Park, and asked if the City could have an enhanced neighborhood park category. Ms. Riner said that the City often had to forget about the standards and consider situations on a case-by case basis. She said because of its location near a commercial center and was new, Oakmont Park was getting a different kind of use than neighborhood parks normally do. Staff would be evaluating that question in the future. Mr. Pap~ requested a comparison of what the community had built and purchased as a result of the 1998 bond as opposed to what it had before the bond's implementation. Mr. Pap~ commended the City's planning for Amazon Park. Mr. Kelly shared Mr. Meisner's concern regarding the maintenance issue. While he appreciated the advisory committee's comments about the possibility of employing serial levies for maintenance, he did not support that approach and wished to move away from use of serial levies for ongoing services. Mr. Kelly advocated for the council to hold a general discussion of financial reform in January 2005. Mr. Kelly liked the geographic and facility/program balance envisioned by the advisory committee. Mr. Kelly was pleased to hear about the survey. He was concerned about moving forward with a 2004 bond MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session when the last bond was still being paid, but was willing to consider the topic if the community supported it. Ms. Bettman said she frequently heard complaints from constituents that parks were being overdeveloped, which increased maintenance costs. She requested a breakdown of dedicated uses, such as dog parks, parking, and sports facilities. Ms. Riner provided a breakdown that indicated 78 percent of the City's park land was being managed as natural area. Developed acreage included parking, play areas, and sports fields. Ms. Bettman asked if the advisory committee had considered increasing park land in a low-maintenance model. She pointed out that restrooms increased maintenance costs and they could be a nuisance in some cases, increasing public safety costs. Referring to the information provided to the council regarding the bond measure, Ms. Bettman requested a breakdown per item cost rather than subtotals. Ms. Bettman was surprised to see so many new neighborhood parks in areas that were newly developed as she assumed those were to be paid by SDCs. Mayor Torrey requested an update on the regional park contemplated at the edge of the community in north Eugene. Mayor Torrey said the City was losing playing fields as schools were closed and new schools were developed. There were no replacement properties for those fields. With regard to sports field maintenance, he suggested the City contact School District 4J and request its help in maintaining sports fields. The motion adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 7 Work Session