Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: October 23, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the September 18, 2006, Process Session, September 25, 2006, Work Session, and September 27, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. September 18, 2006, Process Session B. September 25, 2006, Work Session C. September 27, 2006, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061023\S0610232A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library th 100 West 10 Avenue September 18, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Kitty Piercy, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. EXECUTIVE STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Taylor, Jim Carlson, Susan Muir, Randy Groves, Lauren Chouinard, Kurt Corey, Angel Jones, Bob Lehner. City Council Process Session Council President Jennifer Solomon convened the Process Session of the Eugene City Council. She introduced Betsy Shepard, who was the facilitator for the meeting. Lynda Rose and Mary Walston were present as support staff. Ms. Shepard reviewed the suggested “norms” for the meeting: ? Listen with respect—no interrupting, no talking over, disagree agreeably ? No personal attacks ? Try things on for size ? Stay on task ? Value differences ? Be open and honest ? Look for opportunities to agree ? Strive for consensus Ms. Shepard noted that Mr. Kelly had submitted an agenda item by email. It became Item 4. 1. Council Operating Agreements ? Process for Taking Action on Ordinances Council Coordinator Lynda Rose stated that City Attorney Glenn Klein brought to her attention that the Charter Agreements used to require a first and second reading for ordinances and the language had been changed to that effect. However, she said, it did not match the operating agreement. She said the City Council could have a public hearing on the ordinance and, with no significant input, approve it through the Consent Calendar. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 1 Process Session Mr. Kelly agreed with this, in essence, but questioned putting it into the Consent Calendar. He thought because an ordinance was the law it should require an official vote. Ms. Taylor remarked that there were too many things on the Consent Calendar that did not belong there. Mr. Carlson clarified that 3.02 of the Operating Agreements precluded the inclusion of ordinances in the Consent Calendar. Mr. Poling agreed that an enacting ordinance should be clearly voted on by the council body. He noted that Consent Calendar items were not mentioned in meetings so that the viewing public knew it was on the agenda. Ms. Rose said the only thing one might want to consider would be to wordsmith Section 3.02, so that the language matched the changes in the charter. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Rose affirmed that by wordsmithing she meant the deletion of the words ‘because of charter requirements’ from the language of section 3.02. She felt she had clear direction from the councilors to keep enacting ordinances from being included on the Consent Calendar. 2. CCIGR Committee ? Preparing for the 2007 Legislative Session Ms. Shepard explained that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) was in preparation for the 2007 Legislative Session. City Manager Taylor related that Mr. Pryor and Mayor Piercy brought this item forward with regard to how items, such as resolutions not directly related to the legislative session, become part of the regular agenda. This had brought up the preparation for the legislative session and how to address a division of opinion on the CCIGR in the course of a regular meeting. He said one suggestion was to make such a division into an action item. Mr. Pryor was uncertain of the exact process the CCIGR work underwent. He recalled that he had heard that an item on which the CCIGR was in agreement be placed on the Consent Calendar and items on which the CCIGR was not in agreement be put on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Kelly understood that items that were not unanimously approved were highlighted for “pre-review” by the councilors. He said anyone who wanted a discussion on an item could then request it be placed on the agenda. Ms. Bettman agreed that was the process, as did Mr. Papé. Ms. Taylor noted that the councilors could pull items that had been agreed upon from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr. Carlson cited the last paragraph on Agenda Item Summary (AIS) page 5, Attachment A: Intergovern- mental Relations Committee Process. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 2 Process Session Mr. Pryor noted that there were hundreds of bills and wondered if it was possible for something to “slip through the cracks.” Mr. Kelly felt there was a check in process in that the nine councilors and Mayor, with the help of Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser, were tracking them. He added that bill details were available on the Legislative Web site. Ms. Bettman reiterated that a split vote on the CCIGR could lead to an item being pulled from the Consent Calendar at the City Council level. Mr. Papé stressed that any legislative item could be revisited. Mr. Pryor commented that it was good to know the process. He added that he had experienced some confusion when he was new to the council. City Manager Taylor stated that the work session on November 8 would include a review of historic priorities, what was tracked, and how it was prioritized. Mr. Kelly asked if the completed legislative policies document would be available to review. Ms. Walston indicated it would. 3. Communications ? Council Assignments ? Constituent Tracking City Manager Taylor explained that he wanted to have a check-in about the discussion that transpired during his performance evaluation regarding council communication and the timeliness and adequacy of the response to council assignments. He thought in the past staff had erred in not putting things on the council assignment list, particularly work related to how constituent requests were handled. He said the council should receive feedback from Public Service Officer (PSO) Michelle Mortenson when an item had been deemed to be a council constituent request follow-up. He asked how this was working for the council. Ms. Ortiz said she had asked for several items of information and had experienced good turnaround. She related one instance in which she had asked Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey for information regarding street standards and it had seemed that she had not clarified what she wanted as Mr. Corey had not given her the response she had hoped for. She was ultimately able to ascertain what she needed to know. As for Ms. Mortensen, she felt her work for the council was good. Mr. Poling asked for an explanation of how the members of the public who call frequently were tracked. City Manager Taylor responded that an individual who called a lot was tracked to determine if there was a pattern to it. Ms. Walston elaborated, stating that the name, address, phone number and ward, as well as the nature of the complaint were entered into a system called the Citizen Tracking Resolution and Coordination system (C-TRAC system). She noted that they had “regular customers” and sometimes those people went to different departments. The C-TRAC system provides one central system to track the constituent requests. She noted that sometimes people need help that staff can not provide and an attempt to provide the appropriate referral for those people is made. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 3 Process Session City Manager Taylor said in a situation where councilors found themselves getting numerous requests on a certain topic, it was suggested that these requests be passed along to Ms. Mortensen or him. He related that staff’s goal was to resolve the inquiry, track it, and then provide the C-TRAC system data to the councilors in order to better inform them. Mr. Pryor asked what the system was for anonymous complaints. Ms. Walston responded that staff did track those complaints. She recommended the councilors forward them to staff. Ms. Taylor commented that some people may have a reason for anonymity. She expressed concern about the comments that people “were getting a record” for their complaints. City Manager Taylor replied that multiple callers were not labeled “unwelcome.” Ms. Taylor said she would find it disturbing if such labeling occurred. She commented that the police keep a record of all calls, adding that a person could have a record without doing anything wrong. Chief Lehner stated that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) did log all calls but this did not constitute a police record. Rather, a police record had to do with being arrested. He stressed that the call record helped track neighborhood issues and was never used for “intelligence” purposes. Mr. Kelly commented that he rarely received a serious letter from an anonymous source. He understood that frequent callers did not get “demerit points” for calling, but they sometimes had issues that the council could not handle. He commended Ms. Mortensen for doing a “stunningly good job” and said she was very good about providing feedback. Regarding the C-TRAC system, Mr. Kelly recalled that the councilors had at one time received a one-page summary but he had not liked it. More recently councilors had received a four- to five-page report with a paragraph summary of each call and he had found this to be very informative. Now, he said, they had returned to the one-page summary. He conveyed his preference for the more elaborate report. Additionally, Mr. Kelly felt that some of the emails that went to the City Manager and other department heads seemed to remain unaddressed for too long. City Manager Taylor responded that staff was trying to get those to council assignments. He said most people who send an email expect a quick turnaround, but a council assignment had a two-week turnaround and the two-hour rule. Mr. Kelly indicated that he did not expect a one-day turnaround, but he hoped it would be tracked better. Chief Lehner stated that anonymous messages were taken seriously if they were threatening. He encouraged councilors to pass along any messages that seem semi-threatening or have implications even though they would not warrant an investigation. He said what the councilors may not know would be whether their peers were receiving those messages also and whether those messages were escalating over time. He asked that councilors specify when forwarding things whether an item was being sent for information purposes alone, whether a response from the EPD was desired, or whether the councilor wished for a response from the EPD. Mr. Carlson said it was very helpful to be clear about what was desired, that a councilor wanted a staff response in a packet because he or she wanted the public piece of information. He stated that staff always tried to go to Ms. Mortensen regarding constituent issues because she was the “best tracking mechanism” in the organization. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 4 Process Session Mr. Carlson commented that the tracking system for frequent callers aided staff in determining whether the caller was receiving the right answer and the same answer from the different departments called. He stated that the more staff knew about the inquiries to various departments, the better staff was able to provide service. He noted that Ms. Mortensen received very few phone calls because so many people utilized computers. He related that City staff was looking at different technologies to try to find better ways to track things and to create a better interface with the public on the Web site. City Manager Taylor related that very infrequently anonymous communications were received that were crude, pornographic, and inappropriate. He said those were filed in the anonymous file and were not shared with the councilors and Mayor because they were not relevant and they were egregious. Mr. Pryor averred that the difference between an anonymous and a confidential submittal should be maintained. He declared that a confidential communication should remain confidential. He remarked that anonymous submissions frequently fell under the category of “eccentric and weird,” and others were actually threatening. He said the other type of anonymous submission made allegations. He felt concern regarding those. He related that when he served on the Ethics Commission he had been surprised by the number of anonymous allegations that were received, particularly around election time. He underscored that an anonymous allegation was difficult to work with. He was happy that City Manager Taylor logged them but did not necessarily launch investigations on them. Chief Lehner said anonymous complaints and allegations to the EPD were approached by determining if there was something that could be easily verified. He explained that an allegation that someone was a child molester would not cause any action, but an allegation that a person was a child molester that included information regarding a victim would be investigated. Ms. Ortiz reported that a constituent of hers had been told to quit calling in to report drug activity in the neighborhood. She asked for verification of this. Chief Lehner replied that a person told not to call anymore was likely triaged by an operator who asked if it was happening now and what the person was seeing exactly. He said there were occasions when the department received a call from someone complaining about young people hanging around and alleging the young people were doing drugs. He related that there had been some complaints made about a lack of police response at times that he felt were because of situations where a person’s perception of a situation may not have been what was actually occurring. He recom- mended that councilors let him know of such constituent concerns so that he could look into it. Mr. Papé related that he had received a lot of email regarding the hospital siting. He asked if those emails should all be forwarded to staff. Planning Division Director Susan Muir responded that she had sent out an email on how to respond to the situation and indicated she would resend it. 4. Police Auditor Supervision Mr. Kelly was concerned that the new police auditor would have “eight bosses” and suggested that when a problem arose, she should go to the council president and vice president. Mr. Papé disagreed. He noted that the City Manager had “eight bosses” as did the judges. He did not think two councilors should speak for all. Mr. Kelly pointed out that City Manager Taylor was only responsible to the council as a body. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 5 Process Session Ms. Bettman suggested that an issue for the council be brought to the officers to be placed in the schedule for the full body of the council. She thought some issues regarding facilitation of the process could be brought to council officers. Mr. Pryor did not want the major issues to be resolved by only two people. However, he also wished to avoid having a situation wherein eight people gave eight different sets of directions to the auditor. Mr. Kelly thought how to draw the line between major and minor issues would merit discussion. He suggested having a work session with the auditor on October 23 to work out this process. Ms. Rose recommended scheduling this for the work session of November 13, as it was completely open and it also would give the auditor almost a month to acclimate herself to her office and staff. Ms. Bettman proposed an introductory reception for the new auditor. Mr. Papé suggested that the auditor start by reviewing the job description. Ms. Taylor thought any “trivial” questions could be brought to staff. She also suggested that the Human Resource and Risk Services Department (HRRS) should provide the reception. HRRS Director Lauren Chouinard indicated he would be happy to work with the City Manager’s Office (CMO) to develop a reception. Ms. Ortiz approved of having a work session on November 13. She also liked the idea of having a reception for the new auditor and suggested the Campbell Senior Center as a location. After discussion, the council agreed that a reception would be held for the new auditor. Several suggestions for a location were offered. Ms. Rose agreed to facilitate its scheduling of event, and suggested holding the reception on October 18. 5. Role of Official Spokespeople from Governmental Agencies at Council Work Sessions Mr. Poling averred that if the council was discussing the possible involvement of other agencies in an issue, representatives or officials of the other agencies should be invited to participate. Ms. Bettman thought this sounded good but questioned how the council would determine who to invite. Ms. Taylor had a “big problem” with deciding who would be at the table. She averred that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), for example, had a “definite point of view on a lot of things.” She thought the opposing point of view should be represented, too. She felt it just “would not work.” Ms. Ortiz was not opposed to this idea as long as it was an inconclusive process. She was uncertain how to draw the line. She wondered how a meeting would be handled: would ODOT and the Friends of Eugene both be represented? Would it allow Kevin Matthews, given that he “is an expert in some people’s eyes” and that the Friends of Eugene consider themselves an official body, to be at the table? She was open to discussion of a threshold. Mr. Kelly recalled a discussion about being able to recognize people from the audience; the council decided not to do so. While he wished the council could hold “town hall” type meetings, he did not think it would work very well. He likened it to having a tenth councilor at the table. However, he wanted to encourage having representatives be present in case councilors had questions. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 6 Process Session Ms. Solomon averred that it was important to recognize other government agencies. She felt a lot of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) discussion had been hearsay, for instance, as no one from ODOT was present. She recalled a work session at which Rob Handy had been allowed to speak on behalf of the River Road Neighbors, though it was not an official government organization. She advised the council to be consistent. Mr. Papé remembered that members of the City of Coburg’s staff and elected officials had come to make a presentation about tying in to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wastewa- ter Treatment Plant. He favored limiting the amount of time such outside representatives were given. He suggested five minutes. Mr. Pryor found the discussion to be interesting. He thought duly constituted government agencies did represent partners and that they should have some official role, as was being discussed. He suggested such an entity be given a specific five minutes to talk about what they wanted to do. He did not want them to be part of the deliberations because they were not part of the City Council. Ms. Bettman preferred that agencies involved in a multi-jurisdictional issue submit information to the council packets. She did not want them to participate to the discussion “much.” She asserted that when there were stakeholders in an issue they were represented at the table. Mr. Kelly liked the idea of having the information included in council packets. He declared that a truly inter-governmental issue was a cause for a joint meeting with the appropriate body. Ms. Taylor opined that it was fine to provide information but another governmental body should not try to persuade the councilors. She commented that she had requests from people for “20 minutes on the calendar.” Mr. Poling clarified that he did not want to give the impression that he wanted to suggest that representatives from another governmental body should be able to vote. He underscored that his intention was merely to have such representatives present to provide information or to clarify points. He noted that he received the Lane Board of County Commissioners agendas and sometimes had thought that he would like to weigh in on an issue. City Manager Taylor said they had created a new device called the “Workshop” which provided for people other than councilors to be part of problem-solving for an issue or a project, e.g. the City Hall Complex. He commented that sometimes it seemed they were less prepared for the Consent Calendar items, in regard to having people present to respond to questions. He noted that an item involving the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had come up through the Consent Calendar and notification of EWEB staff had been overlooked. He said staff usually made an effort to provide other elected officials with “first shot” at the Public Forum, but there was not a place for officials from other jurisdictions to participate in the delibera- tions. Mr. Papé said he wanted to make sure the information that was allegedly correct was actually correct. He thought it was good to be able to verify things with their sources. Ms. Taylor asserted that there were times that she had sat in a Lane Board of County Commissioners meeting and had heard something said about the City Council that was not true and she was not able to dispute it. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 7 Process Session Ms. Bettman surmised that some councilors wanted a governmental entity such as ODOT at the table in order to rebut. She felt there were “lots of things [she considered] inaccurate that were said in the council that come out of councilor mouths.” She wondered why only some were “rebuttable” and some were not. City Manager Taylor related that some councilors and the Mayor wanted more joint meetings with other elected officials. This posed scheduling issues more often than not. He said the hardest meeting to schedule was a joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Shepard summarized the discussion: the councilors’ prevailing sentiment was that representatives of other intergovernmental agencies should not be at the table and should not vote, but that being available to provide information was of some benefit. Ms. Rose reported that she had received a call from EWEB earlier in the day seeking to schedule a joint meeting. She indicated she would be contacting the councilors regarding this proposal. Ms. Shepard called for a 10-minute break. 6. Winter 2007 Special Meeting Schedule ? Strategic Planning/Goal Setting Retreat ? Process Session Ms. Rose passed out a polling sheet to determine when the next strategic planning session should be held and preferences for when the next process session should be held. She asked councilors to check the dates they were available. Mr. Papé noted that the prior process session had to be moved and then it never happened. He wanted to know how those things happen when the eight councilors had indicated their preference for the dates. City Manager Taylor stated that it had been the Mayor’s and his decision to move the process session. He recalled that the date had conflicted with his trip to the International City Managers Association conference and that the Mayor had felt it important that he be available for the process session. Mayor Kitty Piercy arrived. City Manager Taylor surmised, from the discussion, that it was the council’s preference to have the first Wednesday after the council break set aside for a process session. Ms. Bettman wondered if three process sessions were really needed. Mr. Pryor said he had another board meeting on Wednesday evenings that prevented him from participating in process sessions on that night. Ms. Ortiz indicated her willingness to be somewhat flexible. She felt it was important to try and accommo- date each other’s schedules. She suggested that the council pass on the process session scheduled for after the goal-setting retreat. Ms. Taylor opined that one process session was enough. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 8 Process Session Mayor Piercy said she was back from an Alaskan tour that focused on climate changes. 7. Action at Council Work Sessions Mayor Piercy stated that her reason for bringing this item up was that she wanted work sessions to be focused on work as much as possible. She was concerned that being driven toward taking action interfered with this. She proposed that action at work sessions be taken only if imperative. Ms. Taylor supported the idea of using work sessions for information and discussion only. She said councilors could then go away and think about things. Mr. Kelly felt that the council wanted deliberation but it did not want to take time for it. When he had been a new councilor, work sessions had not included suggested motions. He thought the only way to resolve this issue would be if the council decided as a body that certain larger issues deserved a different format. Ms. Solomon commented that not taking action at the work sessions felt like a waste of time to her. She said she was not elected to just sit and talk. She averred that if the council needed a second work session on an issue, councilors could ask for one and have it put onto the schedule. Mr. Pryor observed that regular meetings included public comment but work sessions did not. He advocated for including public input at work sessions in which action would occur. Mayor Piercy did not believe the discussion at the work session table was a waste of time. She underscored that what she envisioned was real deliberation, perhaps a couple of suggestions for action, and then the action brought back to a regular meeting. This would provide the opportunity to review everything that came out of a work session discussion for consideration. Ms. Bettman thought traditionally work sessions were used for deliberations. She averred that oftentimes action was necessary to refine the work and provide staff with the appropriate direction. She felt this should come back in the form of motions. She said previously councilor suggestions came back to the council in the form of options, but now it seemed that unless there was a motion “nothing sticks” and these suggestions “went into the ozone.” Ms. Taylor asserted that the purpose of the work session was to hear what others had to say, even though the councilors had read the material. She thought the members of the public were able to listen and watch and then could think about whether they wished to address an item in the Public Forum, a hearing, or by communicating directly with the councilors. Mr. Kelly thought the challenge was trying to think globally in order to determine when to elevate certain topics to a level of greater study and discussion. He suggested staff look at other elected bodies for a model of how action was addressed or not addressed in work sessions. City Manager Taylor reported that he had worked in jurisdictions where no action was taken during work sessions. He thought moving all public hearings to a single night per month could set the council up for MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 9 Process Session deferring action in a work session. He said ultimately if the council was uncomfortable taking action on a particular item, the council could vote to postpone to a time/date certain. Mr. Kelly asked how a jurisdiction that took no action at a work session could clearly inform and direct staff as to how to proceed. City Manager Taylor replied that there was greater deference to staff about what the next step was. Mayor Piercy commented that sometimes the council had a “real work session” and other times she felt the council did not have a robust discussion. At times when she was asked to be the tie-breaking vote she felt like suggesting that the item be discussed further instead. She thought it would be good for the community if there was more support for a direction in which the council wished to move. Ms. Bettman asserted that staff should know the sentiments of the councilors so the work could be done up front. She preferred to have deeper deliberations on issues and less on process. She also believed that a councilor had the right to propose a motion at any time and should not be required to provide intended motions in advance. She declared that councilors needed to give direction to staff and motions were the vehicle by which they could do so. Mayor Piercy asked the councilors if they felt they were having enough deliberation of the issues. Ms. Taylor liked it better when no action was taken at the work session. She felt the council rushed to make decisions with the current system. She did not believe most items were so urgent that they could not wait for a regular meeting for action. Mr. Kelly remarked that some work sessions worked well and some did not work. He did not want to have a “one-size” procedure. He added that often a requested second work session might not fit into the schedule for three months. He wondered if there was a way for the council to review the tentative agenda and suggest putting the important issues out front so that if a second session was needed it could be queued up early. Mr. Papé averred that providing comment to the council officers would be a way to give input in setting the agenda. City Manager Taylor related that one of his city manager colleagues had a color-coding system with his recommendations in order to indicate how strongly he felt about any one of them to the councilors he worked with. He suggested that there might be a way for the councilors and Mayor to indicate how important they thought an item was on a scale of one to ten. Ms. Bettman thought the problem with prioritizing was that there was really no way to know if something was a big deal or not. She felt that one councilor could see problems that another councilor might not and this was not predictable. She said the council may just need more work sessions. Mayor Piercy felt that if the council had a good, robust discussion of an issue but had not honed in on one thing that everyone agreed upon, the council could carry the discussion over to its regular meeting in order to gain public input. She noted that there were other councils that used their regular meetings to deliberate. Ms. Taylor agreed, adding that the public might bring up something the councilors had not thought of. Mr. Poling commented that the current process worked fine for him. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 10 Process Session Ms. Ortiz asked the Mayor if she had brought this issue to the table because she was weary of being a tie- breaker. Mayor Piercy replied that she did not think it had to do with breaking the ties. She related that “many, many people” had said to her that the council did not deliberate enough and that the council seemed to come to the table with a preconceived answer. She also thought the public should have time to be heard. Mr. Kelly said there were certain issues where one could predict how the votes would go and who would vote which way. He thought it would be good to be able to take two strong ideas of outcomes and wait for a week prior to voting. He suggested that someone draft a “straw man” formalization of what this would look like. 8. Legal Opinions Mr. Papé related that Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly had obtained a legal opinion that was a de facto second opinion without consulting the rest of the council. Ms. Bettman did not believe this was a process issue. She called it inappropriate to bring this up at the last minute of the process session. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Papé was trying to raise the general issue of how the council could get a second legal opinion or if he trying to raise the specific issue of the Police Auditor and the second legal opinion that had been provided regarding hiring practices. Mr. Papé replied that he wanted to address the process. Mr. Kelly stated that the council could not engage in a contract and had no way to elect to appropriate another legal opinion as a body. He thought it would be nice to have a mechanism to do so. He remarked that a separate issue in this was that he sometimes consulted his constituents. He cited, as an example, a time when he called an engineer he knew regarding a construction issue. He said in the case of the Police Auditor, the attorney with the second legal opinion had contacted Ms. Bettman and him. Ms. Bettman asserted that the City Attorney represented the City Manager and not the council or the public. She felt with a question of public policy, she would want to get an outside opinion. She recommended that the council put this item on the agenda for the next process session and, in the mean time, that staff should find out what other cities did in regard to this issue. Mr. Papé said he also utilized the knowledge of constituents. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mayor Piercy acknowledged that she had invited this outside attorney to meet with the City Manager. She said she had asked staff, including the City Manager, to meet with various people and discuss certain things many times. She did not think it was in her purview to ask him to take action on a legal issue in which the City of Eugene was involved. She added that City Attorney Glenn Klein, when representing the City, took the stance that best represented the City; and when the council asked for legal opinions, Mr. Klein gave his best opinion to the council based on his legal knowledge. Ms. Bettman thought it would be beneficial to have another attorney at the next process session. City Manager Taylor underscored that the City Attorney represented the City and the council as the governing body of the City. He stated that the City Attorney was not an agent of the administration. He pointed out that in the prior firing of a city manager, the City Attorney represented the City and the city manager had to engage her own attorney. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 11 Process Session Mr. Papé thought the City could hire another attorney to provide an opinion. Mr. Kelly said he would not want any rule that would prevent taking another attorney’s phone call. Ms. Bettman felt the larger issue was whether councilors could go to individual attorneys. She alleged that regardless of what one said, when she had talked with other municipalities’ representatives, people there believed that the City Attorney represented the City Manager, because the City Manager signed the checks. She recommended adding this issue to the next process session. City Manager Taylor wanted to make a distinction between an attorney’s opinion and a City Attorney’s opinion. He said in terms of Oregon common law, there was a large distinction between the two. City Manager Taylor ascertained from the council that there was majority support for addressing this item in a work session. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 12 Process Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall September 25, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy announced that the Monroe Street Police Substation had opened. She said participants from around the state were attending a meeting on climate change being held in Eugene. She commended the Recreation Division for supporting developmental assets for young people. Ms. Ortiz reported that the Monroe Street Substation opening was well-attended and said the facility would offer a myriad of services and be well-utilized by the community. She felt it was a step in the right direction for the Police Department. She said she helped host a Trainsong neighborhood picnic that was also well- attended, with a very large turnout of youth between the ages of 15 and 25. She appreciated the opportunity for a dialogue with young people about their ideas for the community. Mr. Poling announced that Police Sergeant Pat Ryan was retiring and there would be a ceremony on September 26, 2006. He thanked the sergeant for his many years of dedication to the City and wished him well on his retirement. He said the Chamber of Commerce Business After Hours event was held at the Crescent Village mixed-use development where a number of exciting things were going on. He encouraged councilors to visit the site. Mr. Poling said that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) elected Doug Keeler of Springfield as president following the departure of former president Walt Meyer for a two-year Peace Corps assignment. Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart was elected vice president. He said the State Marine Board approached the MWMC with a proposal for an upland boat waste disposal facility. He noted that Lane County had only two pumping facilities currently and the proposal was to construct a federally- funded boat waste disposal facility at the plant on River Avenue; the only cost not covered by the federal grant was MWMC staff time. Ms. Taylor said she attended a Human Development Steering Committee meeting at which the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Task Force report was discussed. She noted she was a member of both groups. She said the steering committee adopted the task force recommendations and although half of the committee MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 1 Work Session wanted to repeal the NCLB legislation, a majority felt a stand should be taken on how to change the law as it would be reauthorized. She said she would provide a more detailed report later. She commented on the efforts of Vancouver, Washington to preserve historic buildings in the downtown area. She described a housing project in which 40 percent of the housing was reserved for people making $7 to $9 per hour. She said the project had a number of progressive features and she felt Eugene could learn a lot from Vancouver. Mr. Kelly joined Ms. Ortiz in commending the new Monroe Street Substation with its expanded services and welcoming environment. He said he also attended the event at Crescent Village and thought the development was a good example of density, diverse housing types, and mixed uses. Ms. Bettman requested abbreviated training in cultural competency as a follow-up to the Communities of Color forums. She hoped it would be scheduled in November when new members of boards and commis- sions had been appointed. City Manager Taylor replied that the training was tentatively scheduled for November 29 and a draft agenda would be in the council’s Thursday packet. Mr. Pryor said a financial report was presented at the recent Lane Metro Partnership Board meeting and the organization was financially sound with many activities in progress. He attended the rededication of Acorn Park and commended Carolyn Weiss and her staff for the project. He said many people from the neighbor- hood attended the event. He said community health centers, which operated under the auspices of the Human Services Commission, were exploring ways to restructure, achieve some efficiencies and expand services. He noted that a priority was protecting existing staff from loss of wages or benefits. Mr. Papé said he was surprised at news that City Manager Dennis Taylor had applied for another job and hoped that Mr. Taylor kept his expertise and career in Eugene. City Manager Taylor apologized to the mayor and the council for the awkward way with which they were notified that he was a finalist for a job with the City of Lawrence, Kansas. He said concern with issues related to the police auditor, the City Charter, and the City Attorney’s opinion had prompted him to consider the job with the City of Lawrence where he had been an undergraduate. He expected a decision would be made sometime in October and if he was selected he would also have a decision to make. Mr. Papé did not think an apology was necessary and hoped that any issues could be resolved and Mr. Taylor would remain in Eugene. He reported that the United Way campaign was launched at Lane Community College with a goal of raising $5 million. He said organizers were optimistic that goal could be achieved as the community had always been generous. He said the Lane Council of Governments Board met last week and took action on some minor bylaws amendments primarily related to executive committee membership and meeting schedules. He said there was a presentation on and discussion of the Lane County income tax measure for public safety. Ms. Solomon reported on her attendance at a Good Neighbor Day event at the Good Neighbor Care Center in Santa Clara. She said the center was an assisted living facility and it was a pleasure to attend the first annual event. She said a citizenship award was given to someone from the Alzheimer’s Association for his work on behalf of victims of Alzheimer’s disease. Mayor Piercy noted a memorandum from Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston regarding recruitment of Budget Committee members. She said that committee member Bob Peters had withdrawn as a candidate for a second term and Ms. Walston was recommending that the recruitment be reopened. There were no objections to reopening the recruitment. MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 2 Work Session City Manager Taylor suggested that the recruitment be closed on a date that would allow candidates for other boards and commissions who were not selected to apply for the Budget Committee. Mr. Kelly said that the schedule should allow for appointment of Budget Committee members before the new year. Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. Peters for his long and varied service to the community. B. WORKSHOP: Presentation of Report from Sustainable Business Initiative City Manager Taylor said that global temperatures were dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past one million years and at last month’s International City/County Management Association meeting sustainability was the most important and well-attended track. He invited Rusty Rexius and Dave Funk, co-chairs of the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI) Task Force, to present the task force’s report and recommendations. Mayor Piercy introduced Mr. Rexius and Mr. Funk, as well as other members of the task force who were present and thanked them all for their efforts. She reminded the council she had charged the task force to respond to the following issues: ? How can the City help support businesses that produce sustainable products? ? How can the City help and encourage every business to take on more sustainable practices? ? How can we better educate the entire community about sustainability? Mr. Rexius and Mr. Funk used a PowerPoint presentation to provide an overview of the task force’s thinking and recommendations. Mr. Rexius said the task force was composed of a diverse group of people who eventually agreed unani- mously on a set of recommendations. He stressed that SBI was a sustainable business initiative, not a sustainability initiative, and asked the council to keep the backdrop of business in mind as the recommenda- tions were presented. He said that SBI was an economic development initiative and the task force considered three issues as it developed its recommendations: ? How the City could help existing businesses understand and apply sustainable business practices ? How to encourage those businesses already in the field of sustainability and make them more suc- cessful and competitive ? How to attract sustainable businesses to Eugene by creating an environment that encouraged and motivated those business to locate here Mr. Rexius said the vision was for Eugene to be one of the most sustainable mid-sized communities in the nation by 2020, with a thriving economy based on triple bottom line sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. He reviewed the City’s existing sustainability practices that would help lead the way for businesses. He noted that the task force’s recommendations were not extremely specific or detailed but rather addressed establishing the goals and infrastructure for long-term success. Mr. Funk stated that the task force produced 22 recommendations with 11 of those directed to the City. He reviewed the following City-specific recommendations: MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 3 Work Session 1. Publicly commit to sustainable practices and to businesses that provide sustainable goods and services. 2. Establish an Office of Sustainable Development within City government. 3. Establish a sustainability board or commission. 4. Adopt the goal of becoming “carbon neutral” by 2020 and create a plan to achieve it. 5. Use sustainable practices and purchase local sustainable goods and services. 6. Adopt sustainability criteria for all City decision-making. Begin with triple bottom line policy analysis for City Council and sustainable purchasing policies. 7. Adopt a goal and develop a strategy to achieve zero waste. 8. Adopt sustainability indicators and a measurement system. 9. Expand education for City employees about triple bottom line sustainability. 10. Provide incentives and awards and remove barriers. 11. Form partnerships. Mr. Rexius concluded that the SBI recommendations were an ambitious but achievable beginning; they were a starting but not an ending point. He said sustainability was not the only economic development tool, but it was one in which the City could participate and have an impact on the business community. Mayor Piercy also recognized Bob Doppelt, Sara Mazze, and Ray Neff of Research Innovations at the University of Oregon who staffed the SBI project. She said a 50-member advisory committee was also involved. Mr. Kelly applauded the broad participation and extensive amount of work that the SBI represented and thanked all of those involved. He said it was some of the most important work that the community and the council needed to be doing. He agreed that the City already implemented many sustainable practices and it would take all elements in the community to make changes. He was pleased with the emphasis on education. He felt that some of the task force recommendations were very specific and was prepared to support and fight for all of them. Ms. Ortiz echoed Mr. Kelly’s comments about the task force’s work. She appreciated the emphasis on a business initiative. She said the City was providing leadership in use of sustainable practices and found the recommendations very useful. She said liked the concept of a board or commission to steer the initiative and provide oversight; her only concern was how to pay for some of the activities. Ms. Solomon thanked task force members for their commitment to the issue and for outreach to her from several members, which was helpful in preparing her for the meeting. She said she was a member of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Council, which was also exploring the concept of sustainability and how it related to business, and she appreciated the thoughtful discussions of that group. She felt the recommendations from both groups were parallel and said that the Chamber group supported the SBI recommendations. She urged local and small businesses to remain a part of the discussion as the SBI effort moved forward because they provided a reality check on the realistic implementation of sustainability practices. Mr. Pryor echoed the remarks by other councilors. He said the report and recommendations were impressive and reflective of values and principles the City hoped to put in place, but recognized the practical aspects of what could realistically be accomplished. He recalled that when the council was working on its vision the themes were people, place and prosperity and those were mirrored in the task force’s triple bottom line. He said the key was maintaining balance among those three elements. MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Papé also thanked all involved in the SBI effort. He said the City was doing a good job of leading by example and thanked Mayor Piercy for her vision. He thought the goal of zero carbon emissions by 2020 was great but was not certain to what extent the City could control its destiny in that respect with Interstate 5 running through it. He asked how achievement of that goal would be measured. Mr. Funk said the goal was for the City, not those driving on Interstate 5. He felt the City, through a combination of purchasing sustainable power and offsets could achieve that goal. City Manager Taylor said that Eugene was in a coalition with other governmental entities to create baseline information and measure progress against that. Mr. Doppelt explained that the City was quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from internal government operations as well as the broader community and that Resource Innovations was attempting to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the broader Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area. He said the drivers on Interstate 5 were not being included but agreed that transportation was the biggest issue. Ms. Taylor thanked Mayor Piercy for establishing the SBI and all those who worked on it for their efforts. She hoped that some of the SBI task force members would be on whatever board or commission was established for continuity reasons. She asked if the task force had discussed requiring sustainable practices in situations where the City was providing subsidies or incentives. Mr. Rexius said that could be a subject for future discussions. Mr. Doppelt commented that the task force had some discussion of regulation but concluded that an incentive system to encourage sustainable practices was preferable. Ms. Taylor speculated about which boards or commissions could be phased out if a new one to address sustainability was created. She suggested that perhaps the Police Commission had served its purpose and could be phased out as well as the City’s participation in the Metro Partnership. Ms. Bettman thanked the task force for its work and appreciated the vision and values that were articulated in the report. She was not certain that a perceptible difference in the status of global warming could be made in 18 years. She agreed that if the City was engaged in economic development it should have a sustainability screen but was unclear if the task force’s recommendation to continue with current practices and add incentives was to encompass all of the City’s economic development strategies. Mr. Funk said that the recommendations were not intended to be in place of anything the City was already engaged in; it was separate and in addition to current practices and the purpose was to target the City’s efforts. Ms. Bettman said that while the initiative was strictly aimed at business, the objectives seemed to be broader. She asked how the recommendations, given their breadth, cost, and objectives that might or might not be achieved, compared with a strategy like subsidizing transit within the City of Eugene that was known to be effective and had maximum benefit. She asked which would be the best cost/benefit investment for the City. Mr. Funk said the task force realized that everything was related to sustainability, including transportation, education, compact density and urban growth. He said the challenge was to focus on something that the task force felt it could get a grasp on and business was chosen because with the City functioning as a lever to move business toward sustainability, there was a powerful engine for change. He did not know how that could be measured on a cost/benefit basis. Mr. Rexius said that subsidized transit would certainly be a great way to reduce carbon emissions; however, another way to reduce carbon emissions was by establishing carbon neutrality as goal. He said that business people would regard that as an opportunity to look at ways to reduce carbon emissions in their own businesses and many of those initiatives could result in more jobs. MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman remarked that as a jurisdiction the City might not be able to do it all because of the resources required. She questioned whether the City should finance an initiative that was business-based to encourage certain incremental changes or invest in something that might have more realistic results immediately. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the discussion by four minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly appreciated the explicit acknowledgment on page 9 of the report that the SBI did not address the local land use planning system, industrial land planning system, transportation systems, or affordable housing systems, which were all a part of sustainability. He did not think it was necessary at the beginning to choose between strategies or approaches because while the long-term cost of some of the recommenda- tions might be substantial, the initial investment was fairly small, such as establishing an office of sustainability and a board. He noted that while the strategies would cost money, the cost of doing nothing was greater. He also appreciated the mention of peak oil in the report but wished the discussion had gone further. Mr. Papé agreed with the concerns expressed about cost and encouraged involving the Budget Committee in identifying funding strategies. He urged that future discussions include the need for a mix of affordable housing in the community. He favored the idea of using incentives rather than regulations to encourage businesses to adopt sustainability practices. C. WORK SESSION: Transportation Priorities for North and West Eugene City Manager Taylor introduced City Engineer Mark Schoening to discuss transportation priorities for north and west Eugene. He said that transportation was a critical component of sustainability and staff was charged with developing recommended next steps for transportation priorities in north and west Eugene. Mr. Schoening reviewed the process for developing transportation priorities for north and west Eugene and recommendations for advancing those priorities. He said the regional and local transportation plans were reviewed and discussions were held with regional partners on the Transportation Planning Committee and the University of Oregon School of Architecture. He said the Public Works work program, which included transportation planning and traffic operations, was also reviewed. He said staff identified and were proposing the following capital improvements, transportation planning studies and regulatory actions to address north and west Eugene transportation priorities: ? Beltline corridor from River Road to Coburg Road – a priority because of the level of congestion and safety issues on the corridor, the project was included in the adopted FY06-09 State Transpor- tation Improvement Program (STIP) for $1 million and in the draft FY08-11 STIP for another $1.5 million to complete the environmental documentation and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was initiating transportation systems planning on that corridor ?thth West 11 Avenue from Terry Street to Greenhill Road – a priority because West 11 Avenue would become a more important transportation corridor with the elimination of the West Eugene Parkway project and there was significant development potential west of Beltline ?th Study of West 11 Avenue from Terry Street to Greenhill Road at the same transportation system planning level as ODOT’s study of Beltline corridor ?th Study of West 11 Avenue from Lane Transit District’s (LTD) Downtown Station to Beltline as the City’s priority for the next EmX corridor MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 6 Work Session ?th Integration of the two studies into an overall transportation corridor study of West 11 Avenue from the Downtown Station to Greenhill Road ? Development of an access management policy Mr. Schoening explained that in order for projects to be included in the STIP they had to be in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and on the financially constrained list. He said the two capital projects were on the illustrative list and to move onto the financially constrained list something else must move off. He said that removing the WEP from the financially constrained list would allow the other two projects onto the list. He said the RTP was in the process of being updated, to be followed by an update of the local transportation system plan (TransPlan). He indicated that the City had applied for $150,000 in competitive Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) planning dollars to be awarded by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) in October 2006. Mr. Schoening pointed out that including the EmX corridor study would require the council to rescind its earlier action regarding the process for selecting the next EmX corridor. He attended a recent LTD board meeting and conveyed the board’s need to for assurance that the City was a committed partner, regardless of whatever the next EmX corridor was, and cognizant of the required 20 percent nonfederal match for transit projects. He stressed the importance of maintaining that commitment until the project was completed in 10 to 12 years. He said that access management was an administrative action that Public Works would move forward with considerable input from the public and the department advisory committee to guide its efforts. Mr. Kelly said he understood the need for a corridor study to identify the most effective projects before beginning any improvements and he was pleased to hear that the School of Architecture would be involved. He asked why the project referred to as Beltline Phase 3 was not included on the list of priorities. Mr. Schoening said that elimination of the WEP as a transportation project meant that the third phase of Beltline, which included an interchange with the parkway, would have to be revisited although completion of Beltline was still on the project list. Mr. Kelly asked about the status of completing Beltline. Mr. Schoening said the proposed priorities attempted to identify projects the City and its regional partners had the capacity to accomplish and, while Beltline completion was still on the project list, it was a lower priority than the other projects. Mr. Kelly asked if better utilization of Roosevelt Boulevard was being considered. Mr. Schoening said that was not currently under consideration. Mr. Kelly urged staff to consider proposing a scoping effort for Roosevelt Boulevard at some point in the future. Ms. Taylor asked why the Beltline project from River Road to Coburg Road was the most urgent and who would benefit from that project. Mr. Schoening replied that the entire region would benefit and it was a priority because of the level of congestion and related safety issues. He said the project was also one for which ODOT was committed to initiating transportation system planning this year and there was funding in both the adopted and draft STIP. He said the project had been established as a priority in the region and that was the basis for the funding it had received to date. th Ms. Taylor observed that Beltline was now more important than West 11 Avenue, which everyone said was a priority. Mr. Schoening pointed out that both the Beltline project and the WEP were in the STIP and the MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Beltline project remained. City Manager Taylor added that Beltline was a more strategic project as it offered the opportunity to move forward and obtain funding because it was already in the plan and funded. Ms. Taylor asked if the Beltline project was related to the plan for a hospital. Mr. Schoening replied the project was included in the FY06-09 STIP far before there was any consideration of a hospital in that area. th Mr. Pryor was pleased to see the West 11 Avenue project on the priorities list. He recognized that although there was an urgent need for improvements, it was important to complete the necessary planning and financing steps first. He asked how quickly the public might see some of the improvements on the ground. Mr. Schoening responded that it could conceivably be eight to ten years before construction began. Mr. Pryor hoped that measures could be taken on an interim basis to relieve the existing problems as the City worked towards a permanent solution. th Ms. Bettman asked if the portion of Beltline north of West 11 Avenue, while a lower priority, was still on the project list. Mr. Schoening replied that the project was still on the list of projects expected to be built within the next 20 years. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the improvements around Delta might siphon off the opportunities and funding for west Eugene. She asked if funding other than STP-U was available for planning. Mr. Schoening said that staff was also exploring working with the University to access funding through federal dollars available to the university system. He said that program was authorized under the recent federal transportation legislation and procedures were still being developed. He said that funding would also require a 50 percent match. Ms. Bettman was pleased to see the City move forward with an access management program. She said that th some of the strategies that she favored for West 11 Avenue, such as a boulevard treatment, did not seem to be compatible with an EmX corridor. She said that demographics when the council identified Coburg Road as the next EmX corridor really supported west and north Eugene. She said that there was significant low- income affordable housing along Highway 99 and many families that could benefit from being able to utilize th transit to connect to employment. She did not support narrowing the choice to West 11 Avenue without comparing the two corridors and determining which would work best. Mr. Schoening said the plan called for both corridors to eventually have EmX service and in conversations with knowledgeable proponents of boulevard treatments it was clear that EmX should be part of an integrated study and not a separate consideration. th Ms. Bettman felt that language in the proposed motion was definitive about identifying West 11 Avenue as the priority for the next EmX corridor. Ms. Ortiz stated she had no concerns about Beltline being a top priority. She said that many people were now driving through town instead of taking Beltline because of congestion and safety concerns and she was one of those people. She preferred to address Beltline problems sooner rather than later. She concurred th with Ms. Bettman’s concern about the proposed motion identifying West 11 Avenue as the next EmX corridor. She hoped that the discussion would include ways the City could gain control of that street, similar to the approach with Franklin Boulevard, to assure that the first consideration was to best serve the interests of Eugene residents. MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz asked for clarification of the recommendation related to changes to the Land Use Code. Mr. Schoening said that as new property was developed and Public Works reviewed the land use application, one of the considerations would be managing access to the major street system. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Ortiz about the need to make Beltline a priority. He said that traffic problems, particularly during peak morning and evening hours, were frightening. He asked if there was a th portion of the West 11 Avenue study that could not be funded by STP-U because it was a local street. Mr. Schoening said that STP-U funding could be used for a study from Greenhill Road to the Downtown Station th because while West 11 Avenue was a local street, it was of regional significance. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Schoening said the RTP was in a cycle to be updated by March 2007 and part of the update would be removing the WEP from the regional traffic model and rebalancing the model to determine the impact on the rest of the transportation system in 2025. He said that would identify any land use actions that had to be addressed in the update of TransPlan. Mr. Papé requested a memorandum from staff explaining how the studies, plan updates and potential land use changes in west Eugene were connected. Mr. Poling said he was pleased to see Beltline at the top of the priority list as he seldom used it because of th the dangerous driving conditions. He was surprised that West 11 Avenue was identified as the next EmX corridor study because the direction of growth and demographics would appear to support Highway 99 as the next corridor; for that reason he could not support the second item in the proposed motion. Ms. Solomon indicated she would make the motion without Item 2. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to identify the Beltline Corridor from River Road to Coburg Road as the City’s top priority for funding in the State th Transportation Improvement Program and West 11 Avenue from Terry Street to Greenhill Road as its second priority, support a transportation corridor study of th West 11 Avenue and the City’s application for $150,000 of STP-U planning funds for the study and support the initiation of regulatory changes to the land use code and associated administrative rule that would implement access management on the City’s arterial and collector street system. th Ms. Bettman suggested rewording of Item 2 to “explore the possibility” of West 11 Avenue as the next th EmX corridor because while she agreed that 6 Avenue to Highway 99 was probably the best choice th demographically, as long as West 11 Avenue was being studied its potential as an EmX corridor should be considered. She agreed that Beltline should be the highest priority and her only objection to the recommen- dation was that it was limited to the section from River Road to Coburg Road. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the motion to identify the th Beltline Corridor from West 11 Avenue to Coburg Road as the City’s top priority for funding. Ms. Bettman explained that the original motion addressed fixes to the west Eugene area’s transportation th problems and the Beltline Corridor connecting with the West 11 Avenue corridor was part of that strategy. th She said that leaving the portion of Beltline north of West 11 Avenue off the table as a priority would not address the problem. MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly commented that two very important issues were raised: the EmX issue and the third portion of Beltline. He felt that a more thorough discussion should occur as soon as possible and before action. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table action to an October 2006 date certain. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Papé voting in opposition. Mr. Poling asked for information about the existing funding mechanisms and their status, particularly with reference to the third portion of Beltline, prior to the October discussion. Mr. Papé asked for the current STIP project list and the financially constrained list. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—City Council September 25, 2006 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall September 27, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, John Lawless, Randy Hledik, Rick Duncan, Phillip Carroll, Jon Belcher. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed members of the Planning Commission. A. WORK SESSION: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Susan Muir to make an announcement. Ms. Muir thanked Steve Nystrom for being the Acting-In-Capacity Planning Director for the past year and a half and introduced Lisa Gardner, who would be the Acting-In-Capacity Planning Director while the department conducted another national recruitment to find a permanent director. Mayor Piercy indicated that the joint meeting would focus on the Planning Commission’s current high priority projects, new priorities, and effective relationships. Planning Commission President Mitzi Colbath said that copies of the commission’s PowerPoint presentation had been provided to councilors. She thanked the council for meeting with the commission to discuss its work plan. Planning Commissioners introduced themselves. Mayor Piercy thanked the commission for its work on behalf of the City. Ms. Colbath remarked that joint meetings were important to the commission as they provided an opportunity to develop a relationship with the council and better understand its priorities. She said the meetings also provided the commission with immediate feedback on its proposed work plan. She said during the past year, with the council’s direction, the commission had prioritized its work, reduced the number of meetings while maintaining a high level of output and either completed or made progress on many of the council’s priorities. Ms. Colbath reviewed the commission’s high priority accomplishments, including Goal 5 protection measures, the Chambers Revisited project, Phase 1 of minor code amendments, work on the Parks, MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Recreation and Open Space Plan, and stormwater standards. She said the commission also assumed the role of a citizen involvement committee for the downtown zoning district project, Walnut Station mixed use project, and South Ridgeline habitat study. She described the commission’s efforts to date with respect to opportunity siting and infill standards. She said the Historic Review Board, one of the commission’s standing committees, had completed the first historic survey of the River Road area. Mr. Hledik discussed the commission’s current high priority projects, beginning with opportunity siting and infill standards. He said direction from the council at a joint meeting in July 2006 had been very helpful. He indicated that the purpose of the project was to concentrate higher density housing on specific parcels that could best accommodate density in terms of compatibility with existing neighborhoods and to create a tool kit of strategies to make infill development more compatible with its surroundings. He said tasks to be completed during the next 12 to 18 months were incorporated into the 2007 work plan. He reported an initial public forum had been held to discuss community concerns as the commission began its work and a staff person had been hired to lead the project. Mr. Hledik emphasized that opportunity siting and infill standards would proceed on separate but equal tracks because while they were complementary, one was not necessarily dependent on the other; the commission was keeping the distinction in mind as it proceeded. He said possible opportunity sites would be identified and that process would involve a wide representation of interests and broad community outreach in collaboration with the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC). He said the process would also provide an opportunity to explore a prototype of the alternate path process in which the council had expressed an interest. Mr. Hledik anticipated that the end results of the project would include broad public awareness and participation, a full study of one or two opportunity sites, a feasibility analysis of high-density housing generally and specifically for the demonstration sites, criteria for identifying future opportunity sites, a tool kit of compatibility strategies, a report of neighborhood concerns about infill and a strategy for addressing those concerns, and an analysis of the net effect on housing yield, which would be the metrics portion of the project. Mr. Lawless addressed mixed-use centers. He said that Walnut Station was an effort to implement mixed- use development and significantly increase the amount of housing in the study area. He said a major issue was continuing refinement of the selection of a preferred design concept. He said the Rasor Park project on lower River Road would provide an implementation strategy to guide redevelopment of the area into a pedestrian- and transit-oriented, higher density mixed-use center. He identified the next steps as involving the neighborhood in the planning process, development of a common vision for the area, a realistic assessment of the study area’s mixed-use center potential, developing strategies for improved connectivity, design standards and guidelines, plan amendments, and implementation strategies. He said a primary issue in mixed-use centers was effectively managing citizen involvement in the projects. Mr. Hledik related that the South Ridgeline Habitat Study was a field inventory and analysis project that would address nearly 2,000 acres of potential habitat area in the south Hills as well as across the south ridgeline. Mr. Lawless stated that the code amendments project would enter Phase 2, which would focus on a limited number of changes to the code as suggested by the community. He said the initial steps of the process would include community outreach forums, opportunities to identify the areas of desired change and prioritization of potential amendments. He said several opportunities for the public and the Planning Commission to discuss the direction and focus of amendments would be organized and conducted prior to any public hearings on the proposed amendments. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Colbath concluded the presentation by noting that a major part of the commission’s work was processing land use applications and the volume and complexity of those applications had been increasing. —— She said that 446 land use applicationsa 20 percent increase over the previous yearwere received during the past year. She said there had been a decrease in large-scale development proposals and an increase in requests to change underlying zoning. She anticipated land use applications to remain a large portion of the commission’s workload. She invited questions and comments from the council before proceeding to a presentation on new priorities. Mr. Kelly thanked the commission and Planning staff for their difficult and thorough work. He particularly thanked Ms. Colbath for her service and regretted that she was not requesting reappointment to the commission. He was somewhat puzzled about Phase 2 of code amendments as he understood that suggestions for amendments would be solicited from the public but the presentation suggested that a list of amendments already existed and the public would be asked to help refine and narrow that list. Mr. Nystrom said that Phase 2 would be community-based and no official list of amendments existed; that list would be developed in the first steps of the process, which he hoped would begin in October 2006. Mr. Kelly asked that the council see the entire list of potential amendments in addition to the refined list. Ms. Bettman stated that she was panicked by the statement that opportunity siting and infill standards were complementary but not necessarily dependent on one another. She pointed out that the original council motion initiating opportunity siting as a strategy had referenced her email about protecting the existing neighborhoods. She said that finding ways to downzone existing residential neighborhoods with an identified fabric and character was inexorably linked to opportunity siting; it was a tradeoff and the two issues went forward hand-in-hand. She felt like a scientist who had advanced an idea for the good of mankind only to see it get turned into a weapon. She said that moving forward at all with opportunity siting without inexorably linking it to protecting the existing neighborhoods would wreak destruction in those neighborhoods. Mr. Hledik replied that the Planning Commission fully appreciated that the intent of the first motion was to identify opportunity sites for increasing residential density with the objective of addressing concerns about increasing density within existing neighborhoods and therefore the potential for conflict with the existing characteristics. He said the commission understood in that respect opportunity siting and infill compatibility standards were hand-in-hand. Mr. Hledik said that a second motion directed the commission to further explore infill compatibility standards and through those efforts the commission had identified certain circumstances which did not relate directly to opportunity siting, but where infill compatibility standards would still need to be addressed. He gave River Road and the Jefferson neighborhood as examples. He said the emphasis was that the comple- mentary nature of the two issues needed to be addressed but in some cases the infill compatibility standards issue went deeper than being coupled with opportunity siting. He stressed that the two would not be completely disengaged but the commission had found that infill compatibility in some cases had a separate arena. Ms. Colbath said the commission heard repeatedly in the public forum that fixing infill problems should not be delayed because of opportunity siting, which could be a lengthier process. Ms. Bettman asked how the commission envisioned an opportunity siting strategy on a particular site addressing the issue of protecting the neighborhood. Mr. Hledik said a good example was the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) process that resulted in identification of compatibility MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 3 Work Session issues but did not identify opportunity sites for a trade-off. He said that was part of the metrics that the commission would be addressing. Mr. Yeiter noted that Ms. Bettman had used downzoning or reducing the level of density in some neighbor- hoods as an example in her remarks about opportunity siting; however, the Planning Commission was looking at a broader pallet of tools such as building height, building form and lot sizes that could be brought to bear on the issue. He said the public was requesting those types of tools quickly. He thought the issue of shifting density from an area to opportunity sites was inextricably linked with infill compatibility and perhaps would be neighborhood-based. Ms. Bettman stated her understanding that in situations where opportunity siting was being considered, the density would be shifted from blanket density on existing residential development to opportunity sites and would be inexorably linked to opportunity siting. Mr. Poling thanked the commission for their efforts. He said the City was fortunate to have a Planning Commission with the caliber of people that it had and pointed out that the commissioners were volunteers. He asked if there was a particular reason for the increase in land use applications and decrease in major development. Mr. Nystrom said there had been an upward trend in the volume of requests in the past year but not in the way that had occurred in previous years. He said flat land, large-scale subdivisions were not as prevalent as they used to be and there was an increase in requests for development on more constrained lands, leading to more complicated reviews. He said there was also an upward trend on reviews of underlying land use designations and zoning to reposition property for other uses. Mr. Papé also thanked the commission, particularly Ms. Colbath. He noted that neighborhood refinement plans had not been updated or amended in many years and asked if they were so antiquated as to be dysfunctional with little future value. Ms. Colbath said that the older plans became, the more difficult it was to coordinate with the Metro Plan. She said the commission held many discussions and would continue to discuss as part of its work plan the idea of a second generation of refinement plans. She said the commis- sion was aware of the cost involved in developing refinement plans and the fact that many areas of the City did not have a plan and was seeking ways to address some of the issues related to the refinement and Metro Plan process. Mr. Papé asked if it would be possible to have a citywide threshold for infill standards and then customize them for specific neighborhoods as an alternative to new refinement plans. Ms. Colbath replied that the commission was in uncharted territory and wished to find ways to optimize all of the neighborhoods in Eugene while ensuring character and compatibility. Regarding infill, Mr. Belcher said the commission recognized that some fixes would work across the city and there were some parts of the community that had unique issues and unique solutions would be required. Mr. Kelly said he did not perceive residential changes as either blanket upzoning or downzoning; it was a more surgical approach and infill standards had broader and deeper applicability than just opportunity siting. He liked the concept of growth metrics as essential to increasing net density in a way that was compatible with the surrounding development. He pointed out that the word “downzoning” had been explicitly dropped in an amendment to the motion. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that the alternate path had been relegated to a subpart of opportunity siting and infill standards. He said that would completely eliminate commercial, industrial, and mixed-use developments where the alternate path could make a big difference in the types of projects proposed. He MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 4 Work Session asked how the alternate path could be elevated to a more prominent place on the work program. Ms. Muir replied that fewer items had been removed from the list of priorities than hoped for. She said that many items the Planning Division would like to see move higher on the list remained at the bottom when higher priority items were assigned. She said that the alternate path could be moved to the first priority on the list but that would mean that resources would be redirected from other high priority projects such as opportunity siting and the South Ridgeline Habitat Study. Mr. Kelly said he was extremely disappointed as he felt that the alternate path had the greatest potential of all of the tools to help the City grow distinctively and compactly. Mr. Hledik said that many commissioners shared Mr. Kelly’s frustration, but the alternate path was a major paradigm shift that would be a challeng- ing piece of work and there was a consensus to at least move forward with some initiatives such as opportunity siting and infill compatibility as a starting point. He said the full intention was to broaden the applicability of the alternate path once some success in residential development was realized. Ms. Bettman pointed out that Ballot Measure 37 was not addressed at all in the work plan. She said it would be necessary to look at the impact on density within the urban growth boundary if huge subdivisions were built outside of it because of waivers. She said she was hearing different points of view from staff and the commission about whether opportunity siting and infill compatibility standards were inexorably linked or separate tracks. She understood there was a separate track for infill compatibility standards that would have a broader application than just opportunity siting but she could not support the work program if opportunity siting did not include that piece. Mr. Hledik highlighted the commission’s new priorities. He said the commission by consensus was suggesting the addition to the work plan of a scope of work for a buildable lands analysis that would include residential lands. He emphasized the addition was only for a scope of work, not the analysis itself. He said the commission felt it was important to have current data upon which to evaluate the broader land use issues that came before it. Mr. Lawless stated that the commission was also recommending the addition of a scope of work for an issues assessment related to neighborhood plans. He referred to earlier remarks by Mr. Papé about the status and value of refinement plans. He said another issue was inconsistency when attempting to interpret and apply the original intent of a plan decades after it had been written. He said the idea there was community support for the idea of developing a strategy for the next generation of refinement plans. Ms. Colbath remarked that the council had added a City-initiated Jefferson-Westside neighborhood Metro Plan amendment as a high priority item on September 11, 2006. She said the commission was requesting clarification of the council’s expectations with respect to the other priorities. She hoped that the council, in the next part of its discussion, would talk about any changes it might wish to make to the work plan or prioritization of tasks. Ms. Taylor suggested that the commission begin it work on neighborhood refinement plans by asking the neighborhood associations to review their plans and identify things that should be added or problems with enforcement of existing plans. She asked what would happen if the study determined valuable plant and animal habitat existed in that area and there was an application to use the land for another purpose. Mr. Nystrom said that a full menu of options would be presented to the council, including education, incentives and regulations and the council would have the opportunity to discuss to what degree regulation played a role in that type of situation. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if there were ways to achieve greater flexibility in enforcing the current code when something seemed unreasonable or impractical. Mr. Nystrom replied that there were tools in the current code that attempted to provide a certain level of flexibility to consider alternative approaches or relief. He said that type of question would be raised during the next round of code amendments. Ms. Taylor said her biggest concern was the low priority given to the Land Use Board of Appeals remand concerning Goal 9, Goal 10, and Chapter 6 tree provisions. She observed that at one point it was the top priority but had slipped down the list to Item 38. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that a number of those provisions were back in place through various measures, but not all of them. She said there were compli- cated tree issues related to the inventories and the item represented a major undertaking; although it could be moved to a higher priority at the direction of the council. Ms. Taylor said she would propose moving the remand to a higher priority. She asked what authority the Planning Division had to spend time, effort and resources on plans for a hospital when the council had been informed it could not express an opinion because of future action it might take. Mr. Nystrom replied that the Planning Division was only responding to land use applications that were submitted to it, including Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments. Mr. Kelly cautioned that refinement plans were critically important to the neighborhoods that had them and the current ones should remain in effect until the next generation of plans was well in place. He urged establishing a goal to have second generation refinement plans for every neighborhood over the next five to six years. He agreed with the need for a scope of work on a buildable lands analysis and advised the commission to take commercial and industrial land first because of the availability of raw data from the joint jurisdictional study and lack of data on residential land. Ms. Ortiz thanked commissioners for their efforts and remarked that the commission itself had been helping the City plan for its future since it was established in 1925. She indicated infill was an issue for her and she challenged the commission to create a win-win situation where infill occurred but people were able to accept it because it was compatible with their neighborhood. She hoped to see the community accommodate growth without expanding the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Ortiz’s comments. He said that win-win could be achieved with design review and design standards, possibly mixed with alternate path, and also by bringing a broad spectrum of people to the table to address the problem. He said a point had recently been made about housing and rental affordability in the community. He said that rental housing did not have to mean poor quality and design standards and appropriate siting could help. Regarding the remand and tree issue, he conveyed a suggestion from the Eugene Tree Foundation to look for solutions as part of the minor Land Use Code amendment process. Mayor Piercy said she had been hearing at almost every meeting in the community a growing concern that one day Eugene would be a city for wealthy people and poor people and nothing in between. She said the challenge was to ensure in an intentional way that there was a place for young families to move into the community. She said a city without children was not a community and just letting the market prevail would not ensure that working families and young families had an entry; those families were critical to the well- being of the community and the school system. Ms. Bettman stated that just because something was heard everywhere did not mean it was substantiated by research and data; it just meant it was the prevailing opinion. She thought that a responsible representative government made sure that they substantiated the policies they made with research and data. She said that MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Eugene had a higher rental rate than most communities of a comparable size and the issue was not rental or nonrental; it had to do with stable, healthy neighborhoods. She said the distribution of rentals in the City was another issue. She thought that people would grab whatever piece of information or opinion suited their purpose and she preferred a much more informed discussion about where the City needed to go. She said that poorly designed and unregulated infill and density would have a counterproductive effect and people would flee to the outlying areas in order to protect their investments. Ms. Bettman stated that there were items on the work plan she did not think should be priorities and if they were removed there would be resources available for issues such as the tree ordinance or the alternate path. She noted that one of the tasks under opportunity siting was to develop criteria for identifying additional opportunity sites. She thought it was the general sense of the council to work on demonstration sites for opportunity siting and not necessarily look beyond that to the next steps. She said the task might be more appropriate for the next year. Ms. Bettman stated that the buildable lands analysis was a Planning Commission initiative and not a high priority for the council; it could be replaced with another task. She asked the commission to take Ballot Measure 37 into account on all of its work plan initiatives. She was not certain what sort of clarification the commission wanted on Item 11, the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood City-initiated Metro Plan amendment. Mr. Nystrom said the council’s motion on September 11 made the Jefferson-Westside issue a high priority and the question was how that fit in with the other high priorities currently on the list. Ms. Bettman thought that Item 11 should replace some of the Planning Commission initiatives. Mr. Belcher said that the Census Bureau website indicated that Eugene’s percentage of rentals was 63 percent and the national average was about 50 percent. Mr. Kelly indicated he shared Mayor Piercy’s concern about the potential bifurcation of the City’s population, as did 4J School District Superintendent George Russell. He suggested that the City might want to lobby for elimination or modification of the statewide ban on inclusionary zoning as a tool that could help with equity. He had no concerns with the placement of Item 11 in the work plan. Mr. Papé asked for a work session on a residential buildable lands inventory. Mr. Pryor expressed his appreciation for the Planning Commission’s work. He recognized that the council was referring some very difficult issues to the commission and felt confident that those issues would be thoroughly and thoughtfully studied. He felt the work plan attempted to create a balance between a variety of interests, the order of work was fair and he would support it. Ms. Solomon thanked the commissioners and said she was amazed at the amount and depth of their work and the thoughtful conclusions they presented to the council. She was very supportive of the proposed work plan, which accurately captured the council’s priorities. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the FY07 Planning Com- mission Work Program contained in the attached Annual Report, including the His- toric Review Board FY07 Work Program. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to replace Item 9 with Item 38 in the FY07 Work Program. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to remove the word “residential” from Item 9. Mr. Kelly asked for clarification on the work item as he understood the task was only to conduct a scope of work, not begin a residential land inventory. Ms. Colbath indicated the item was only scoping, not an inventory. Mr. Kelly said he would vote against the amendment on that basis. Ms. Ortiz requested permission to change her vote on the Ms. Taylor’s motion. There were no objections. The motion still failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor. Ms. Bettman said it was out of order for the commission to put work on a residential buildable land analysis, even just the scoping, in the work plan before the council had held a work session. She said it was a planning issue regulated by State statute as opposed to being preempted by the Planning Commission; it did not belong in the work program as it was addressed within other regulatory procedures. She would not endorse the item as it would set the wheels in motion to make it happen. Mr. Pryor said he saw no problem with gathering information about what resources would be required to conduct the analysis; the knowledge would be helpful. Mr. Kelly said he would support the amendment as a work session on the issue could return the item to the work plan. The vote on the motion to amend was tied, 4:4; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Tay- lor, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition, and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Colbath commented that the commission hoped to use effective communications to bring information to the council and receive feedback. She said that joint meetings were extremely useful for strategic discus- sions of issues such as opportunity siting and infill standards and helped the commission better meet council expectations and forecast major policy issues and trends. She said the commission was committed to creative public involvement like the open forums with citizens, which enhanced collaboration with stakeholders. She indicated that the commission would also continue with informal communications such as the “council buddy” system. She thanked the council again for the opportunity to have a joint meeting. Ms. Taylor added her thanks to the Planning Commission for its work. Mr. Belcher drew the council’s attention to Item 12.i, which referenced assessing the extent to which the City had a clear and widely supported vision and strategy for achieving it. He said without a vision and strategy it would be difficult to move beyond arguing disparate opinions about growth management policies. Mr. Papé expressed his appreciation for the “buddy system” as it had helped him better understand some of the complex issues facing the community. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly echoed Mr. Papé’s comments. He said the “buddy system” and joint meetings made a positive difference and were very useful. He said the City’s growth management policies might no longer be shared by all and had been struck by the disconnect with those concepts throughout the political spectrum. He observed that many people were not even aware of the City’s growth management policies but felt that a solution that had wide appeal could be found. Ms. Colbath related that of the 60 to 70 people who attended the commission’s public forum, only two were familiar with the City’s growth management policies. Ms. Bettman said a win-win solution would be hard because the power differential in the community made compromise difficult. She thought the growth management policies were pragmatic and if the City wanted them to be part of the vision for Eugene they would be adopted into the Land Use Code. Mayor Piercy recalled earlier disconnection between the commission and the council. She saw a significant amount of progress and the commission’s work was helpful to the council in its decision-making. She thanked the commission on behalf of the council. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 9 Work Session