Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 01/21/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall January 21, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey was absent due to a trip to Washington, DC. Council President Bettman called the meeting to order in his absence. A. WORK SESSION: Airport Governance City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Kurt Corey, director of the Public Works Department. Mr. Corey explained that the work session represented an ongoing discussion on regional service delivery. He highlighted the history of past discussions in the community on airport governance. He reported that the outlying communities had been canvassed as per the direction of the City Council. Responses were included in the council work session packet. He related that a follow-up letter from the City of Springfield had been received too late to be included in the packet; it indicated that Springfield would be interested in holding a discussion on regional airport governance to the extent that it would involve a larger regional area than the Eugene/Springfield/Lane County area. Mr. Papd arrived. Mr. Corey summarized the overriding question as being that of whether the City wanted to be "in the airport business or out of it." Should the City Council decide to opt out, the next step would be to notify Lane County that the City wished for the County to be in the lead role of airport service delivery. Mr. Corey stated the concept of an airport district was the structure identified as that able to incorporate a larger regional area than other models. He noted that the possibility of forming a county service district or port authority or district existed but each of those were limited in parameter by State statute to the County. Mr. Corey described the process to change airport governance, noting it would take about three years, as follows: 1. The Metro Plan would have to be amended. 2. Special district petitions would have to be submitted. 3. The Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission would have to make a ruling on the change. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 0 Work Session 4. A general election would have to be held in which voters would have to determine by a yes or no vote whether the airport governance should be changed. Mr. Corey conveyed the staff recommendation that the City should remain in the leadership role in delivering airport service. He underscored that it was a user fee-based enterprise that drew nothing from the General Fund and no property tax subsidy. He stated that, under the current method of operation, it transferred a net benefit of approximately $1.3 million to the City of Eugene through activities such as Fire, Police, and Central Service allocation, fleet services, maintenance services, and other activities in a cost-of- service-provision model. He stressed that the financial forecast and the 20-year master plan did not call for General Fund or property tax subsidies as necessary to maintain the operation of the airport. He noted that a governing body generally considered creating a service district for an airport due to a need to unencumber itself from environmental, financial, and/or maintenance liabilities. To date, there were no examples of a government giving up its authority over a %moothly running" airport simply to create an airport authority. Mr. Taylor reported that a conversation at the Regional Managers Meeting had indicated only a ~tepid" interest in this change. He said the managers, given everything they had before them, did not see the need to pursue the conversation of regional government at a time when the airport was recovering and beginning to stabilize after the tragedies of September 11,2001, and when more flight opportunities were being added to the service. He felt pursuit of regional airport governance was not the highest and best use of the stretched resources of the community at this time. Ms. Bettman opened the floor to council questions and comments. Mr. Meisner expressed his appreciation for the responses received regarding the airport district. He felt the letter sent by the City had not communicated the relative health of the airport, causing the other government entities to view the suggestion for a change in airport governance with suspicion. He stressed that the council was interested in pursuing regionalization as an alternate to City governance so that, should a problem arise, the burden would not fall only on Eugene. Mr. Kelly said the $1.3 million was a payment to the General Fund for services rendered rather than a net gain. He asserted that, should the airport not be part of the City, it would not use the services and, as such, the money would not represent a loss. Mr. Corey stated that there was a synergy by virtue of being able to have a resource in place that could be applied to different service delivery needs throughout the organization. He noted that a port authority structure would be able to make its own business decisions as to how police, fire, and security services would be provided. He averred it would not be fair to say that, absent the air operation, the services and the resulting revenue would be absorbed. Ms. Nathanson said it would be difficult to create a regional air district without the enthusiasm of the district partners. She felt the letters indicated a lack of interest and that, had the City sent a letter that focused on the health of the airport, this level of interest would not have increased. She asked Mr. Corey to elaborate on the response received from the City of Springfield. Mr. Corey read aloud the letter, written under the signature of Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken. The letter indicated that Springfield would only be interested should there be broad regional support for an airport district. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap6 commented that his interest in forming an airport district was not so much of a financial concern as it was to recognize that it was in fact a regional facility. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Airport Manager Bob Noble stated that approximately 50 percent of the ticketed passengers flying out of the airport were from Eugene zip codes. He noted, in response to a further question, that there were seven community commercial airports in the State of Oregon and two of them were districts. Mr. Meisner asserted it was not the City's sole responsibility to have its taxpayers provide the level of service for noncity residents that the larger district options provided. He encouraged staff to actively work on options that brought the school districts together. In response to questions from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Corey reiterated that the airport cost no money from the General Fund and that the airport staff was paid for by the airport. Ms. Taylor asserted that the airport should have been set up as a regional district when it was developed. She commented that there was nothing to lose. Mr. Corey disagreed. He noted that during the recent snow storm the City had been able to share equipment and personnel resources and this had been a great benefit to the Public Works Department. He said without this, the department would have been capitalizing the services ;;up front." He stated that the Central Service allocation raised the City's ability to provide a general level of service to the greater organization. He opined that an elected board for district operation might not share the City's ideals nor have its best interests at heart. Ms. Taylor asked if the City gained money from the airport. Mr. Noble responded that the airport provided $360,000 per year for its portion of the central services. He asserted that there was economy in having the airport be part of the municipal structure. He stated that there was not a way to create a surplus of revenue from the airport because it would constitute ;;revenue diversion," but there was a way to recapture all of the work created by the airport within the organization. Mr. Taylor said a change in airport governance would cause the City to lose the integration that was possible in terms of overall service with a governing body that does more than a single purpose provider of service. Some opportunity for the public to be involved would be possible through the way the board would operate, but assets that had been developed since 1919 would be ;;handed off" to someone yet unknown. He called attention to the three years of work associated with working with the County to go through the Metro Plan amendments and to raise the question for the voters. He commented that it was difficult to contemplate adding to the workload in this way at a time when the City had ;;ambitious challenges" to undertake. He related that it was difficult for staff to understand what question the airport district would change the answer to and what was being sought by making this change at this time. Ms. Solomon stated that a district would be a separate governing body that would have the authority to tax. She opined that if the current airport governance structure was not broken, it did not need to be fixed. She called attention to the dearth of interest expressed by those who had been sent letters regarding a discussion on airport governance. She recommended the item be taken off the table. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Poling echoed Ms. Solomon's comments. He related that he had read the responses and none had indicated any enthusiasm for the idea. Ms. Bettman agreed that the airport was functioning in the present. She recommended that the council look to the future and ask how the airport would be maintained. She noted that the council had just voted to spend the entire balance of the Air Service Development Fund. She asserted that, without the fund, the airport had no resources to increase its air services. She commented that Linn and Benton Counties had seemed interested in pursuing the discussion on the formation of an air district. She opined that the future success of the airport was dependent on such a change. Mr. Taylor asked if this was a strategic time to hold this conversation. He commented that the City did not have the attention of other counties because of State and their own fiscal challenges. Mr. Meisner commented that two years ago the City Council had ~weaned" the airport from property tax revenue to pay for airport bonds. He added that he found the letters to be positive in tone on the topic of joint governance. Ms. Nathanson asked if there had been any sentiment expressed among various directors of chambers of commerce and tourism bureaus toward a more regional form of airport governance. Mr. Noble related that he had met with the chamber directors and economic development staff from regional communities for the specific purpose of determining what areas the various municipalities could collaborate on. He reported it was not as great an issue for the outlying communities as optimizing air service for the citizens of those communities. He added that those communities all had interests in their own airports, though not all of them had commercial air service and none of them were interested in sharing governance of their airports. Ms. Nathanson surmised that what was being suggested was that the other partners would ultimately prefer to foster airports within their own jurisdictions rather than to partner with Eugene. She suggested that ways to involve outlying communities in a more meaningful way, such as an airport advisory committee, be explored. Mr. Noble responded that, currently, two members of the Airport Advisory Committee were residents of Lane County and that the airport did work closely with the Visitors' Bureau of the County. Mr. Noble reiterated that the airport had ~a lot on its plate." He felt that changing the governance of the airport would open a plethora of issues such as who would be taxed and whether they were willing. Ms. Nathanson concurred, adding that the City Council had a full slate as well. She averred that, were she to prioritize, she would not choose to start work on a shift in airport governance at this time. Mr. Pap~ asserted there were positive reasons for looking at this change. He felt the change would create a separate board completely focused on the functions and operation of the airport. Mr. Pap~ commented that he did not think the City would ~just hand over" its assets, but rather that it would get fair market value for it in one way or another. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Noble said that the last time there had been a operational deficit that had required General Fund moneys preceded the time he was manager of the airport. He noted that the general obligation bond passed in 1989 represented the last time the airport had any reliance on property tax moneys, adding that any deficit that sought aid from the General Fund had been prior to that, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 3 Work Session though he was unsure of exactly when this occurred. Ms. Bettman asked if the question of airport governance could be kept in the discussion of economic development. Mr. Taylor replied that he would prefer the council to say that this was not the time for this discussion so that energies could be focused on other areas that would be more fruitful. He stressed that the City governance did not suffer from good ideas, but rather from the lack of capacity to handle the ideas that were most critical. He averred that keeping every idea alive diluted the strategic prioritization necessary to City functioning. Mr. Meisner said he would not support a motion to keep the discussion of airport governance on the table. He surmised that staff had made it clear that the City wanted to keep governance over the airport. He opined that, should the council wish to proceed, staff would communicate its lack of interest to the other parties in the region. Ms. Bettman summarized the discussion, stating that airport governance had been dropped from the slate of issues the City Council would undertake. B. WORK SESSION: Discussion on Priorities for the Planning Division Work Program City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Tom Coyle, Executive Director of the Planning and Development Department, and Susan Muir, Planning Division Manager. Mr. Coyle stated that he and Ms. Muir had worked to compile all of the pending work items on one list, including items related to planning, housing, and zoning. He called attention to Attachment A: Planning Division Work Program Discussion Document in the Agenda Item Summary. He conveyed the goal of the document, which was that of determining five items the City Council wished to prioritize above the others. Mr. Kelly affirmed that the list contained more items than could be accomplished in the fiscal year and agreed that prioritization was necessary. He recommended that the council direct staff to determine what sort of resources would be needed for work items that were priorities but remained unfunded. Mr. Kelly expressed frustration that it was not evident in the work plan which work items that had received strong council direction in the past had been brought to fruition or had been set aside for fiscal reasons. Regarding the latter, he declared that such things should be brought back before the council explicitly if previous council direction is to be changed. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Muir stated that any work item with an asterisk was a priority item. Ms. Taylor asserted that the council sometimes set work priorities that would then ~just disappear." She opined that the Civic Center should not be given a high priority. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Muir stated that the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand was currently left to the discretion of the department. She added that there were no mandates and there was no funding for that work at this time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor declared that funding should have been transferred to the work items the City Council had indicated as priorities and that the LUBA remand had been one such priority. Mr. Pap6 felt the list was a step in the direction of getting ;;ahead of the game." He complimented Mr. Taylor for bringing it before the council for strategic prioritization at this point because the ;;plate is too full." He felt such exercises should be conducted routinely as a discipline in all departments of the City government. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Coyle affirmed that the first two items on the work plan were funded and were on track. Mr. Pap6 noted the absence of a work item that would spur further discussion of support services such as offices and clinics for the hospital that was planned to be sited in Eugene. He felt it should be the 57th work item. Mr. Coyle felt this dialogue could be held coincident with the Land Use Code (LUC) amendments. He noted there was one element of the code that prevented one person from coming forward and requesting a change in the land use language. He averred that changing such language would be one step toward facilitating the development of such support services. Mr. Meisner called the list ~valuable," adding that how the council prioritized what it chose to do in community planning was important. He averred community planning had been deprioritized over the years and long-range planning positions had been eliminated. He felt it to be an impossible position for the Planning Division to be in. He opined that the community would ~pay for it for scores of years to come." Mr. Meisner stated that the Lane Transit District (LTD) would be participating in the trip to Washington, DC, for the United Front lobbying and would be seeking $40 million in support for Bus Rapid Transit. He said the City needed to ascertain that LTD was seeking money to support what it required from the City to undertake this effort. Mr. Poling recommended that the item regarding the hospital placement be broader in scope so that citizens could be provided with the best possible health care. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the City might remove its capacity for handling current planning issues. She felt the City's need to develop ~infill" was hampered by contentious and anxious comments from the public and the City was unable to adequately address the comments. She said when looking at the third item on the list, which would make minor amendments to the LUC, she had recalled the vote on amendments during the previous year. She stated that at the time she had voted on it, she thought the council would be revisiting the amendments in 2004 to ascertain what worked and what did not work so that any items that were not working could be ~fixed." She felt the code provisions on medical uses other than hospitals were an example of code that was use-based instead of performance-based. She opined that medical care was changing and the City Code had not changed with it. Ms. Nathanson asked if, in the third work item, the council addressed code items that raised questions or created problems the Planning Division would have more time to work on other problems. Mr. Coyle stated that it would. Ms. Nathanson voiced her support for Item 2 in the staff recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon thanked staff for the list, calling it "helpful." She called attention to the eventuality that there would be two state-of-the-art hospitals in the County. She predicted this would generate more economic development opportunities. She felt the City was well-positioned to take advantage of this and bring in more secure, higher-wage jobs. Ms. Bettman commended Mr. Kelly for listing motions that the council had passed that had not appeared on the list. Ms. Bettman felt the discussion on nodal development that recommended site-specific planning was a return ;'to square one." Ms. Bettman questioned the high prioritization of ;;minor" LUC amendments. She commented that the word ;minor' indicated a lower priority status. She stated that the City was soliciting citizen input for code amendments. She felt this should be an item for the Planning Commission. Continuing, Ms. Bettman agreed the clinic issue was something that needed to have a team approach in responding to it. She opined that it should not be ;;what can we do that the developers want" but rather how the City could take the opportunity to fulfill some of its objectives, such as placing a clinic close to the downtown core. Mr. Kelly averred it would take a second work session to pass the priorities. He recommended following up on the list in an expeditious fashion so that momentum would not be lost. Mr. Kelly asked if the council direction to staff to bring information on ;;daylighting" the Millrace by June 30, 2004, would be followed through, should the council pass the staff recommendation as is. Mr. Taylor responded that it would not. Mr. Kelly noted such a change would be a complete reversal of council direction after just two months. Mr. Taylor countered that the council would be making priorities given its resources and all the things that the council had asked staff to do and, as such, it was not a reversal so much as it was a delay. Mr. Kelly felt this could impact the availability of potential funds and development decisions in the courthouse district because there was uncertainty due to the lack of a long-term vision. He conveyed his concern regarding the delay and asked what it would take to put this item back on the list. Continuing, Mr. Kelly stated that, given the amount of time put into the West University Task Force report it disturbed him that it much of its implementation was not on the priority list. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Muir said the City was playing a support role in the BRT development. She assured him that staff was continuing to monitor meetings in order to make sure the City was capitalizing on its limited resources. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly regarding the Millrace. She felt that things that were changed or postponed in the work program should be pointed out for the benefit of the City Council. She opined that staff worked extensively to help developers ;;get around" land use regulations while one person building a house was left to wend his or her own way through the codes. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to affirm the recommendation for- MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 6 Work Session warded by staff as identified in the Agenda Item Summary. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the motion to the "date certain" of February 9, 2004. Ms. Bettman suggested that, should the council vote to table the item, the priority list be compared with council motions and available resources. She said more information was needed. Ms. Taylor stated that, should the item not be tabled, she would vote in opposition to the main motion. Mr. Taylor pointed out that tabling the item would push other items into future work sessions. Mr. Meisner asked for clarification on where funding was coming for some items, such as stormwater planning. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Council President Bettman adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 120041Centra! Services DepartmentlCity CouncillccO40121ml. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 7 Work Session