The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 2A - Minutes ApprovalEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: October 25, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us 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 15, 2004, Work Session, September 27, 2004, Work Session, September 27, 2004, City Council Meeting, and September 29, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. September 15, 2004, Work Session B. September 27, 2004, Work Session C. September 27, 2004, City Council Meeting D. September 29, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041025\S0410252A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 13, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, and Gary Pap6 (listening via telephone, but not voting). COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION Discussion of Proposed Lane County Public Safety District Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson explained that thc work session was intended to discuss the impact of current budgetary constraints on public safety, and primarily prosecution, as the District Attorney's office had been forced to make reductions which had impacted the types of cases that were prosecuted. He said the new District Attorney had reviewed the types of cases that were going to be considered in circuit court and had determined the City was adequately served by thc available prosecution and court services. However, he asserted there were still long-term structural issues related to the overall public safety system and many of those were at the County level. He stated the County had problems related to its revenue sources. He invited County Commissioner Bobby Green and County Sheriff Jan Clements to speak on a proposal the County had begun developing on the formation of a countywide public safety district. Ms. Taylor arrived. Commissioner Green thanked the City Council for the opportunity to discuss thc proposal for a public safety district. He assured the council that the County was not asking for anything except for the opportunity to call upon thc City Manager and the Police Chief for information that would help the County in the formation of such a district. He said the County was taking two approaches and thc public safety district was one of them. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners had formed a Service Stabilization Task Force, comprised of nine citizen members, and it had met twice thus far. He read the charge of thc citizen group aloud to the council, which was to help thc County live within its means on an annual basis, to look at how to reduce the cost factors which drive the deficit, and to "right size" the organization, i.e. find the size that best meets need in service delivery stabilization. Included in the task force's charge, he said, was formulation of a recommendation on how many years the County should engage in the strategy that may ultimately come from its work. Commissioner Green said one option was to pursue revenue. He added that, whatever option came before the board, he wished to know what the implications were of that option. He expressed his desire to avoid MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 15, 2004 Page 1 Work Session any unintended consequences. He stated that a law enforcement district was different from a public safety district. Commissioner Green distributed copies of the Lane County, Oregon; Five-Year General Fund Forecast. He called attention to the gap between the rising costs and revenue, which was not increasing at the same pace. He said the County was seeking a minor amendment to the Metro Plan that would address the components of the services that Lane County already provided, including corrections, parole, and the Department of Youth Services. He added that the minor amendment did not address the issues incurred by growth, but rather the issues inherent in the function of County government. He noted that the County had not been able to increase its tax base, in spite of rapid population growth. He said the City of Eugene received approximately $7 per $1,000 in real value, the City of Springfield combined with Willamalane Recreation District received $6.71 per $1,000 in real value, while Lane County was trying to provide services at $1.27 per $1,000 in real value. He called this a "huge disparity" in rates. Commissioner Green called his visit to the council a preliminary courtesy call, adding that he had spoken to the City of Springfield on Monday. He related that the City of Springfield had recommended that the scope be kept very narrow. He noted that one suggestion had been to charge for police services. He objected to this as the ability to pay should not weigh into the provision of public safety services. Commissioner Green remarked that the County commissioners were not so naive as to believe that the voters would automatically respond to the proposal. He said the case would have to be made for the benefits to the public. Sheriff Clements conveyed his appreciation to the council for the opportunity to talk about this concept. He said the County sought to remove impediments to the formation of a County Public Safety District with a permanent and dedicated rate. He called it a "concept only" at this point in time. He noted the track record for passage of money measures at the county level had not been good. He felt formation of the district would be a fundamentally different approach that would provide a consistent level of service and a measure of control over public safety services because of the dedicated funding. Sheriff Clements said the County services included youth services, incarceration, intervention, and treatment. He noted that the juvenile justice center was only running at one-third of its capacity. He commented, regarding adult incarceration, Police Chief Lehner and the Eugene Police Department found it lamentable that the Lane County Jail was not able to hold the people the police booked into custody. He said presently the adult correctional facility was the holding facility of the last resort. He stated that, because of the degradation of State financing for community-based mental health issues and alcohol and drug detoxification, the County wound up having to take custody of people afflicted with those problems. Sheriff Clements related that, based on a Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) study in 1998, it was suggested that, even if the County was running at full capacity, which it is not, another 300 beds would be needed in the adult correctional facilities by 2003. He pointed out that the dearth of adult correctional capacity meant that people who were booked became repetitive problems as they did not show up for court dates and were not able to be adequately sentenced or sanctioned by parole and probation. He said prosecutorial services and the District Attorney's office were not able to adequately handle the volume of the caseload. He noted that a parole or probation officers considered a caseload of 75 to be heavy, but now were faced with caseloads of 100 and much greater. Regarding rural patrol, he thought it possible to have a split rate for those who lived rurally and those who lived in the urban area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 15, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Sheriff Clements closed by stating that a "whole lot of work" needed to be done to remove the impedi- ments to the possible formation of a public safety district. He said if the County did not get the Metro Plan corrected the timelines would be so compacted that the district would not be able to be placed on the ballot in 2006. Commissioner Green encouraged the council to think of public safety as a system. He said budgeting for more police officers added to the District Attorney's work load in terms of charges being filed and increased the work at the County Jail. He noted that included in the County's three-prong approach, along with the formation of the task force and the proposal for the public safety district, was the possibility that the County would have to continue reducing its services. He indicated that he did not support further reductions in services. Commissioner Green related that the board had just adopted a resolution declaring September 2004 to be Alcohol Recovery Month in order to promote treatment. He acknowledged that there was not enough money spent on substance abuse treatment, though it was well-known that such treatment worked. Mayor Torrey opened the floor for questions and comments. Mr. Meisner commented that the district would be property tax-based and the voters were consistently resistant to property taxes. He lamented that Ballot Measures 47 and 50 had eliminated the tax base "forever." A fire alarm caused the meeting to evacuate for approximately ten minutes. Mr. Kelly asked what made the commissioners believe they could convince voters to support the district. Commissioner Green responded that he wanted to place the information before the voters and had a fiduciary responsibility to do so. He said he would campaign for the district by speaking a great deal on the benefits of such a district. Sheriff Clements commented that the County was approaching the issue with a reasonable timeline. He opined that past bond issues had not been allowed enough time. He said the County needed to be careful to give the right message and thought that the fact that it would be funded by a permanent rate would be helpful. Mr. Kelly expressed reluctance to act on anything prior to seeing the report from the task force. Commissioner Green responded that the report would be completed at the end of October. In response to another concern expressed by Mr. Kelly, Sheriff Clements assured him that governance of the district was mandated to fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners. He said this could only be changed through a legislative decision. Ms. Taylor remarked that she was leery of special governments. She asked if the Springfield jail would affect Eugene. Sheriff Clements replied that the clientele the Springfield jail would address was fundamentally different than the clientele of the County jail. He felt that building the jail in Springfield would influence voters there not to support the public safety district, as they would perceive their j ail needs as having been met. Sheriff Clements supported general purpose governments, but recognized that property tax measures had caused an inequity between expenditures and revenues. He predicted a variety of benefits would accrue MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 15, 2004 Page 3 Work Session from the formation of such a district, and that the EPD would still have authority in the areas it wished to have authority in such as the Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team (INET). Commissioner Green voiced his support for general purpose governments over single purpose govem- ments. He said the Board of County Commissioners tried to be all things for all of the County residents as a general purpose government. He stated that, with full funding, this would not be a problem. Demands, however, had exceeded revenue. City Manager Taylor raised the problem of compression. He noted that the City of Cottage Grove had already reached compression. He asked what the role of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) was and how its work plan to look at system gaps and needs was being utilized. Commissioner Green said compression was a reality that the commissioners would have to address. He thought a public safety district would not put the local jurisdictions into compression. Ms. Taylor related that she had heard that the State had taken back responsibility for the parole and probation departments in some cases. Sheriff Clements replied that the State had taken it from some counties, but was not likely to assume the responsibility in the case of Lane County. He noted that, when the State did so, those counties lost the revenue for those services. Ms. Taylor asked if the County would eliminate the fees for park usage if there was more money for public safety through such a district. Mr. Green said it was a consideration. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that a public safety district would only increase taxes. She opined that separate jurisdictions increased the "layers of bureaucracy." She suggested that the current budget be reprioritized and that other revenue sources be explored. She asked why the commissioners would not seek an advisory vote prior to seeking an amendment to the Metro Plan and presenting it before the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Commissioner Green called this a good suggestion. He felt that past history indicated a situation so dire, he felt fairly certain what the vote would be. He predicted that asking the people if they wanted public safety would net a 'yes' vote and asking them if they want to pay for it would net a 'no' vote. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion failed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly voting in favor. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed, 4:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Mr. Kelly opined that something fundamentally different needed to happen in how services were provided. He noted that prevention and treatment were the best long-term usage of public safety dollars. He recommended a significant increase in those components of public safety be incorporated into the district. Mr. Meisner agreed that the scope of a public safety district should be narrow. He said it had been argued that the entire City contribution to the Health and Human Services budget was for public safety. He underscored the need to be very clear to the public what the district would provide. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 15, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Meisner shared his skepticism regarding special districts. He called it short-sighted to create a district with only a property tax base. He felt that ultimately the district would have to seek serial levies. Ms. Bettman reiterated her recommendation to consider an advisory vote. She felt strongly about the split rate as urban residents would not want to feel that they were subsidizing rural residents. She would, however, consider the district as an option should it be very narrowly defined. Commissioner Green said that the County had a strategic plan and had reprioritized its budget so that critical services were allocated money first. He said the County was open to input and welcomed emails and letters from the councilors. Ms. Bettman said two things came to her mind, one of which was the assessment of systems development charges for public safety. The other thing that she wished to bring up was the bridge widening project at Mount Pisgah, which had cost $1.6 million. She opined that this alienated voter support for tax measures. Commissioners Green responded that the County commissioners relied on the councilors to explain to their constituents the restriction of such funds. He said he counted on councilors such as Ms. Bettman to differentiate transportation fund dollars and general fund dollars for the voters, because the general public had only a rudimentary knowledge of funding sources and the restrictions placed upon them. He expressed appreciation for the council's efforts to enlighten voters. Mayor Torrey asked what was in it for 'us.' He thought the biggest question that needed answering was when the rural residents would be satisfied with a fix to the public safety problem. He asserted that, until rural residents were satisfied, no such district would meet voter approval. He wanted the problem fixed because the criminal activity did not observe boundaries such as city limits. He expressed a willingness to have the entire County be under one public safety department. Commissioner Green reiterated his appreciation for the opportunity to speak to the council. He related that a Springfield councilor had suggested that the County was "playing a shell game with the money." He stated that in order to play such a shell game, one had to have the money to hide and the County did not have it. B. WORK SESSION: Draft Ordinance for Motor-Assisted Scooter Regulations Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Man- ager to draft an ordinance to ban motorized transportation devices from all City-owned, off-street paths, prohibit the use of such devices in a manner that disturbs the peace and requires Eugene merchants to make certain disclosures related to the sale of motor-assisted scooters. Mr. Meisncr voiced his support for thc motion. He shared his chief concern which was how the ordinance would be enforced. He noted he had witnessed motorized scooters ridden by children without helmets only the previous day. Police Sergeant Derel Schulz said these violations were enforced and would continue to be enforced when witnessed by police officers. Mr. Meisner recommended that Sgt. Schulz make the council aware of what sorts of resource needs thc ordinance would create. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 15, 2004 Page 5 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Sgt. Schulz said it was in the vested interest of the retailers who sold scooters to provide complete information to people who were going to purchase such scooters. Within the noise constraints that had been discussed and the wish for such vehicles to remain on roads, Mr. Kelly felt the City owed it to users to improve the on-road conditions for them. He suggested it would be a good time to assess what critical roads lacked bicycle lanes. He also suggested there be a distinction between electric and gasoline powered scooters, as the electric scooters were substantially quieter. Sgt. Schulz commented that one unique element of Eugene was the miles of multi-use paths. He felt there was a clear desire by users of the paths to keep them for human-powered vehicles only. He added that making a distinction between gasoline and electric would make enforcement more difficult as there were so many variations in the designs of the scooters. He also felt there were safety issues created by any machine operating in the same area as human-powered devices. He strongly recommended using the term "motorized transportation device" in order to cover any future developments in scooter technology that might be difficult to categorize. Mr. Poling remarked that one could not legislate against stupidity, which he felt to be the largest problem. Regarding the distinction in sizes, he remembered from his experience in law enforcement that brake displacement had been the defining qualification for a motorcycle to travel on the freeway. Because of this, he preferred a simple definition to one that might be harder to discern from a distance. He did, however, wish to encapsulate in language exceptions for motorized devices for people with mobility issues. Mr. Poling noted he had witnessed street vendors selling scooters. He recommended including language that would apply to them. Ms. Bettman echoed the comments of her colleagues. She concurred with Mr. Kelly regarding upgrades to transportation facilities to meet the needs of the new laws. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She thought the ordinance should go further and disallow gas-powered vehicles from bicycle lanes. She felt they posed a hazard to bicyclists. City Manager Taylor remarked that he had never seen more lively community discourse on a topic. He felt the ordinance would add to the capacity for regulations for such vehicles. He added that it was still the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children ride such vehicles safely. Sgt. Schulz recognized that, though the public had been provided an opportunity to speak on this issue, it had been during the summer break for the University of Oregon and Lane Community College. He advised the council to provide an opportunity for students to provide input. Ms. Solomon also supported the motion. She did not agree that there should be delineation between electric powered and gasoline powered scooters. Ms. Solomon asked how noise levels would be enforced. Sgt. Schulz replied that language had been included to empower someone with reasonable sensibilities to be able to make a complaint about noise. City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton said it would be regulated in the same manner as other noise distur- Dances. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 15, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Solomon guessed that most riders were school-age children. Sgt. Schulz said, according to his personal experience, the children had not been the majority of problem riders. He related that he had conversed with the school resource officers on circulating the information regarding regulation for scooters. Mr. Kelly reiterated that displacement from off-street paths warranted improvement to the on-street transportation facilities. He asked staff to look into electrically assisted bicycles and provide comment. He opined that they fundamentally felt like a bicycle. Sgt. Schulz commented that it was difficult to catch up with an electrically assisted bicycle on a regular bicycle. He said the chief concerns had been to regulate behavior including noise and speed. He stated that once such a device was set into motion, it was irrelevant what it ran on. Mr. Poling agreed with Sgt. Schulz that college students should be provided an opportunity to provide input. Mr. Meisner wondered if all jurisdictions chose not to license or regulate such devices. Sgt. Schulz replied that numerous police agencies in this State that interpreted the 'grant privilege' laws through the Department of Motor Vehicle to cover all motorized vehicles and were citing people for driving such devices without a license. He said currently the City of Eugene was not comfortable with issuing citations for such things. Mr. Meisner suggested looking on the Web to find how other jurisdictions were handling them. Ms. Brotherton commented that regulations varied greatly. She cited a city in Arizona that had banned the scooters outright and the State of Texas which required a person to be nine years old in order to ride them. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Sgt. Schulz clarified that the application of driver's license regulations was only brought into play should a person's license be suspended, as this was a suspension of the grant authority that gave a person the power to operate a vehicle. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 15, 2004 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 27, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6 Jennifer Solomon. Council President Bonny Bettman, presiding in the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROMMAYOR, CITY COUNICL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor stated she was pleased that City Manager Dennis Taylor, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, and a number of City staff were at the recent sustainability conference and she hoped that some of the concepts such as an inventory of the types of jobs that existed in the community and "building on what you have," could be implemented in Eugene. She asked if any activities were occurring around zoning of the railroad property. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that the property was not within the city limits and there were no zoning issues. Mr. Pap6 reminded the council about City Hall Day on October 14, 2004, and said Eugene would be one of Oregon's host cities under the initiative by the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) to inform communities about local government functions. Mr. Meisner thanked those who had attended the dedication of the train depot. He asked the City Manager to extend the council's appreciation to all staff who worked on the project. He stated that the dedication exceeded his expectations and the depot exceeded his hopes. City Manager Dennis Taylor echoed Ms. Taylor's comments regarding the value of the sustainability conference, which had representatives from model communities across the country. He observed that a number of the ideas featured in discussions were consistent with efforts underway in Eugene. He commented that staff was developing "Working City," a community television production that would feature various aspects of the City organization and provide information for citizens in a series of broadcasts. He said the first program would be aired on October 6, 2004, at 8 p.m. He asked for feedback from councilors on the program. City Manager Taylor acknowledged a recent incident that raised concerns regarding racial profiling by the Police Department. He said that he and Police Chief Bob Lehner had met with the complainant and representatives of the Eugene-Springfield chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Chief Lehner had contacted the United States Department of Justice (DO J) to determine if the DOJ would investigate allegations around the issue of police profiling and the recent complaint. He said he would continue to report to the council on the matter. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman noted that the Police Commission was conducting community forums on September 28 and September 30, 2004, to obtain public comment on police complaint procedures. She announced that a public meeting and design workshop for the Crest Drive area would be held September 29, 2004. She said that a recent article published by the American Public Health Association confirmed that research had established that traffic calming measures saved children's lives. Mr. Pap6 asked when the racial profiling study being conducted by the Police Commission would be available. City Manager Taylor said that a presentation on findings had been scheduled for the previous week but was cancelled because of the incident he mentioned earlier. He said that the task force working on the report would reconvene to review the findings and a report would be submitted to the Police Commission and made available to the council and the public later in the year; he would keep the council informed about the timeframe and how the report would be used. Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:45 p.m. Mr. Kelly requested a copy of the written request to DOJ to investigate the incident. He commented that many community residents faced discriminatory and arbitrary behavior both from the City organization and the community at-large. He said that while many people had been working on the problem for years, little progress had been made and it was necessary to face up to diversity issues and racism issues. He said he appreciated and supported the work of the committee and the Police Commission but it was critical for both elected and appointed City leaders to set the tone in the community. City Manager Taylor said the City was on record to make organizational changes and pledged his commitment to treat people fairly, both individually and systematically, and work to address the complex societal issue. Mr. Meisner commented that a number of councilors had complained over the years about "paper planning" instead of planning that made a real difference. He said the City organization'and the community had a habit of studying and processing and talking about diversity, but Eugene was not actually a very tolerant community, and the City organization could model better behavior. He said it was important to voice actively and loudly the City's commitment to make a change. City Manager Taylor reiterated his pledge that he and Chief Lehner would provide leadership on that issue. He thanked the council for raising the issue, the Police Commission for its work, and individuals in the community who had worked with the City on diversity challenges over the years. B. WORK SESSION: Transportation Funding for Pavement Preservation City Manager Taylor recognized the council's interest in finding a sustainable, locally controlled source of funding to address the growing backlog of pavement preservation needs. He introduced Public Works Director Kurt Corey and asked him to discuss the history of the issue and various options available. Mr. Corey provided a brief background of the issue, referring to a report from the Budget Citizens Subcommittee in the fall of 2001 that identified a $67 million backlog of deferred maintenance that was continuing to grow and required a new revenue source to address. He said the committee recommended a combined local option gas tax and transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) for the purpose of generating a new revenue stream of $9 million per year. He said the council had approved a motor vehicle fuel tax and approved and then repealed a TSMF ordinance after Springfield repealed its TSMF ordinance. He reviewed the existing revenue sources: MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 2 Work Session · Three-cent local option gas tax · Transportation system development charge reimbursement component · Transportation Management Area (TMA) status qualified for additional federal funding · Lane County transfer of Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA III) funding Mr. Corey said that almost $3.5 million in preservation projects had been placed on the ground during the past three construction seasons and while progress had been made, the backlog continued to grow to about $93 million and funding was $4.5 to $5 million short of the Budget Committee's recommendation each year. He referred to a chart that demonstrated the backlog would reach $180 million over the next ten years if no additional action was taken, while full funding at the $9 million level would reduce the backlog to the level it was at three years ago and continue to reduce it over the next several years. Mr. Corey summarized the policy issues before the council as: 1. Is transportation, capital preservation, and the growing backlog still a priority? 2. If so, is an increase to the local gas tax and/or revisiting the TSMF ordinance an appropriate solution? Mr. Corey reviewed the options set forth in the agenda packet and said that staff recommended the option that combined a two-cent increase to the local gas tax and a TSMF to generate an additional $4.5 million annually for pavement preservation funding. He said the rationale for the staff-recommended option was that it reflected the recommendation of the Budget Committee and provided a balanced approach as everyone who benefited from the transportation system participated in the cost even if they did not purchase gas. He indicated that a TSMF coupled with an increase in the local gas tax would need to generate substantially less money than what was contemplated by the earlier TSMF initiative. Also, trip generation data was more sophisticated and along with pass-by trip methodology could help establish a reasonable cap to address high-end user estimated rates. Mr. Corey said that Springfield was able to meet its current pavement preservation funding needs through the local option gas tax and the OTIA HI transfer from Lane County. He said the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce's position was that pavement preservation funding remained a top priority for the commu- nity and surveyed members had indicated a preference for a gas tax over TSMF. He said that representa- tives of Springfield and the chamber were present to answer questions. He encouraged the council to adopt the staff recommendation. City Manager Taylor asked the council to provide feedback on whether the issue was still a priority, what action to take, and when to take it. Ms. Solomon expressed disappointment that County representatives were not present as there had been no progress on discussions of countywide funding solutions. She stated her support for the concept of a gas tax and TSMF and directed the council's attention to a message from Bruce Mulligan, lay member of the Budget Committee, supporting the staff recommendation if the revenue generated was specifically focused on the backlog of needed reconstruction and overlay instead of ongoing operations and maintenance. She urged that the amount of any proposed TSMF be clearly communicated to both business and residential taxpayers so they understood the impact. She asked if Springfield intended to propose an increase in its gas tax. Mr. Corey said that Springfield was not proposing any increase. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor questioned why the TSMF issue was before the council again when it was only repealed a year ago and why the Chamber of Commerce was characterized as a major partner in the transportation funding effort as though it was a branch of government. She said she would prefer to see the problem discussed with neighborhood organizations. She also asked how quickly funds could be used if they became available. Mr. Corey said the funds could be immediately used. City Manager Taylor added that there were almost $11 million in contracts that could have been issued if the TSMF had not been repealed. Ms. Taylor remarked that she did not feel the meetings with the County were futile, although follow-up was needed. She said the contention during discussions was that a countywide vehicle registration fee could not be passed because people would pay according to the number of vehicles they owned and those who did not own vehicles would not pay anything. She said if all the municipalities in the County voted for a vehicle registration fee it would pass, as two-thirds of residents lived inside an incorporated area. She urged staff to work with other municipalities in the county to support a registration fee and stated she was opposed to a TSMF. She said with sufficient time for public input she would likely support a two- cent gas tax increase. Mr. Meisner also expressed disappointment that the County was not represented. He asked why the incorporated cities of Lane County were not getting part of the County's road funds, which was commen- surate with business activities, gas sales, market importance, assessed valuation, or population in addition to the OTIA III transfer. He was not optimistic that any progress could be made on that matter. He suggested that the term "street maintenance fee" should be used in lieu of TSMF to more clearly identify the intent of the fee. Mr. Meisner noted that the progressive community joined the Chamber and County Commissioners in opposition to the TSMF. Mr. Meisner stated he was not prepared to support the staff recommendation until more detailed figures were available to illustrate the impact on business and residential taxpayers. He expressed concern that any action taken by the current council could be affected by future increases in stormwater maintenance fees. He said he could support a two- or three-cent increase in the gas tax. Mr. Poling said he would support the staff recommendation with the understanding that it was a starting point to allow staff to prepare an ordinance with supporting data to begin a community dialogue. He said the issue should be addressed as a pavement preservation project and that is where the fund should be focused, not on street amenities such as benches. He remarked that he was appreciative of the OTIA HI funds, but hoped the County would participate in making pavement preservation funding a countywide issue with a countywide solution. He agreed with the points made by Mr. Mulligan in his message. He said that the council needed to take action quickly and cautiously. Mr. Pap6 believed that those projects that were "on the ground" were not adequately "celebrated" with signage to identify them as pavement preservation projects funded by the gas tax. Responding to Ms. Taylor's comment, he said the TSMF was back before the council because the council had hoped when it was repealed that the County would come forward and provide a reasonable solution. He also expressed disappointment in the County's response. He thanked the Chamber of Commerce for its support and agreed with the points made by Mr. Mulligan about dedication of the funds to preservation only. He emphasized the need for an uncomplicated TSMF formula. Mr. Corey noted that the preservation projects did have advisory signs at the beginning and end of each project and he appreciated the feedback that they should be more visible. He related that the County MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Commissioners had a joint meeting with the Veneta City Council and were unable to attend the work session. Mr. Kelly said that many people did not realize that the historic funding sources for street preservation had diminished or not kept pace with inflation and that property taxes were not used for street mainte- nance. He commented that he had previously supported the gas tax and TSMF and would likely do so again if the ordinance was substantially similar to that which came before the council in 2002. He cautioned that the motion was the start of the process and it was necessary to obtain community support, particularly from the chamber. Ms. Bettman said that regardless of what terminology was used, the TSMF was a tax and with the $2 million from the existing gas tax would represent a $6.5 million tax increase, the largest burden would fall on residents of the City. She said the issue should go to the ballot. She stated that the City should be mn like a household, not a business, and the first priority should be preserving assets instead of expansion. She said she did not believe that asset preservation through road maintenance had been a long-term City priority. She said that she voted against new road projects because they contained funds that could be used to preserve the existing street system. She said the TSMF was repealed the last time because the Chamber of Commerce threatened to put the issue on the ballot. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to direct the City Manager to return to the City Council prior to the end of the calendar year with draft ordinances increasing the local motor vehicle fuel tax by an additional two cents (to five cents per gallon) and establishing a Transportation Sys- tem Maintenance Fee. Mr. Pap6 asked if Springfield had been able to fill the gap in transportation funding with OTIA III funds transferred by the County. Mr. Corey said a major difference was the comparative size of the backlog of deferred maintenance between Springfield and Eugene. Springfield Public Works Director Dan Brown explained that the Springfield City Council had set a target of $1.6 million in additional revenue and $900,000 was to come from the TSMF. He said that federal surface transportation funding combined with OTIA III funds and the County OTIA III transfer funds equaled $900,000 and the target was met. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to in- clude direction to staff to return to the City Council with a potential bond- ing proposal as an option to address pavement preservation and the back- log of deferred maintenance. In response to a question from City Manager Taylor, Mr. Pap6 said the funding mechanism should be a general obligation bond. Mr. Kelly said he could not support the amendment because of his concern about adding another fundamental City program to the programs that would be placed before the voters for property tax bonds. Ms. Taylor said she could consider asking the voters if they wanted to Support a bond action, but preferred to see new road or road upgrading included. Ms. Bettman said she preferred Mr. Pap6's approach to that of simply raising taxes by increasing the gas tax and charging a fee. She said the community would be included in the discussion of priorities and voters could make their choices. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 5 Work Session City Manager Taylor said that if the amendment passed, staff would be able to produce materials for a general discussion of bonding vehicles available to address funding needs. Mr. Meisner asked if Mr. Pap6 was proposing a bond alternative for the entire backlog of projects. Mr. Pap6 said that it could be the sole alternative or in combination with the gas tax. He agreed with City Manager Taylor's suggestion for a general discussion of revenue bond approaches. Ms. Taylor said it was important to her that people be able to vote on whatever type of bond was proposed. Mr. Kelly asked what other sources besides property taxes could be used for a revenue bond. Mr. Corey said that revenues from a TSMF or local gas tax could be used. City Manager Taylor said that the bond could also be used to specifically identify those things for which the TSMF or gas tax revenues could be exclusively used. Mr. Kelly stated that he would oppose the amendment as he felt there was less clarity to the direction to staff. Mr. Pap6 said he would not support a bond that was backed by TSMF revenue. He said that bonding was more straightforward and streets were shared by many users and benefited the entire community, not just those with automobiles. Ms. Bettman said she would not support a bond that was supported by a TSMF or any type of fee revenue source. She said that she could only support a bond that allowed voters to vote to incur a tax. She observed that if the amendment failed because it was not sufficiently specific about the revenue sources, the council had an opportunity to defeat the main motion and direct staff to bring back information on different bonding mechanisms for discussion. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Na- thanson voting in opposition. Ms. Nathanson stated that she supported multiple revenue sources wherever possible because it helped balance the burden and the ability to afford certain types of projects or services. She said that if only one or two primary revenue sources were used, a poor year for that type of revenue would jeopardize the programs or projects that were funded. She used sales taxes and property taxes as examples of revenue sources that could be affected by things such as Internet sales and property tax limitations. Ms. Nathanson said broadening revenue across different categories, particularly consumption-based taxes, made it more likely that everyone contributed to the cost of providing public services and facilities. She said she supported multiple revenue sources by continuing the gas tax and adding a TSMF. She also expressed regret that the County and other cities in Lane County were not looking at a countywide vehicle registration fee to continue to broaden the revenue sources. Mr. Kelly cautioned that although there was a compelling need for street preservation, it was necessary to establish expectations. He encouraged staff to make available to the public the map of potential projects and tabulated data. He observed that even in ten years the backlog of projects would still exist, although it would not have increased and in fact would be somewhat reduced. He said he would support the motion, but cautioned staff not to proceed too far without a sense of the positions of the major constituencies. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked staffto provide a summary of how effective TSMFs had been in other communities in Oregon. Mr. Meisner remarked that the motion was premature and he would not support it. Ms. Taylor stated that she would not support the motion and preferred to concentrate on efforts to establish a vehicle registration fee. Mr. Pap~ thanked staff for keeping the issue before the council and stressed the need to provide the public with specific information as was done with the parks bond. Ms. Bettman said that she wished other needs, such as social services and education, were as easy to quantify as deteriorating streets. She commented that the County had been generous in its support of City street projects in downtown and the courthouse district. She said that elected officials had been negotiating with the County to obtain substantial funding for new projects and all of those funds were County Road Fund moneys that could be used to preserve the existing street system. She expressed concern that identifying a specific revenue target of $4.5 million would result in a shift of costs to "average folks" when the chamber negotiated for a cap on high-end users who generated a lot of trips. City Manager Taylor said that if the motion passed it was essential to reach out again to the community and build a new case for revenue. Mr. Meisner declared that there should be no public education to the community before the issue had been returned to the council for a decision. Mr. Kelly said that outreach should focus on stakeholders who were likely to raise significant issues, such as neighborhood groups and the chamber. He agreed with Ms. Bettman's warning regarding the effect of a cap on high-end users. Ms. Taylor said that the need for street repairs had already been conveyed to the community and encouraged staff to discuss with stakeholders about methods for funding those repairs. The motion as amended passed, 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall September 27, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap6 (via telephone). Council President Bonny Bettman called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor James D. Torrey was unable to attend as he was out of the country on a Sister City trip. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - Proclamation for "American Dream Campaign" On behalf of Mayor Torrey, Council President Bonny Bettman read a proclamation for the "American Dream Campaign" into the record. Councilor Nathanson said, in her role on the Board of Directors of the National League of Cities (NLC), she had participated in reviewing information presented to the NLC for several months and in endorsing this national campaign, which would be officially launched on September 28. She stated that more than 70 cities had signed up to adopt proclamations, create resolutions, and convene special meetings to discuss the topic of achieving the American dream. She related that cities across the country were being asked to do this so that the National League could focus attention on issues of fairness, opportunity, and a chance to succeed. She acknowledged these things were becoming more difficult, improvement was needed, and the cities needed to partner with the federal govermnent to facilitate such improvement. Councilor Nathanson cited compelling statistical information on how much the federal government used to contribute to local municipal and county governments. She stated that what was contributed today was a fraction of what had been contributed in the 1960s and 1970s. While the NLC understood that budget priorities had become more complex at all levels of government, it recognized that at the city level, attention needed to be focused on citizens and what they need to achieve the "American Dream." She hoped this would renew the attention of Congress and the current and future administrations on what was going on in towns across the nation. While a number of policy issues were debated at the federal level, municipal governments were being left behind. She reported that, when discussions on how much money should be spent on child care, affordable housing, or education and how it was allocated, city councilors across the nation participated as best they could through state and NLC to make sure federal dollars could be maximized in local spending. In closing, Councilor Nathanson thanked the Mayor and the City Manager for placing this item on the agenda so that the City of Eugene could join the other cities across the nation in starting this new national campaign to draw attention to these issues. She wished to particularly highlight Eugene's work in affordable housing over the past two decades. She said to the extent the City could help people in times of MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 1 Regular Session crisis and emergency and also create situations where people were in a position to purchase their first home or have security for their family, it should. She thanked Councilor Bettman for reading the proclamation and reiterated her commitment to continue to call on the state and federal partners to help the cities in the areas of fairness, equality, housing, jobs, and education. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Council President Bettman reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Matthew Shuler, 890 West 36th Avenue, spoke regarding the recommendation to classify the Crest Drive corridor as a collector street. He appreciated the work City staff had put into this and felt the final result would be improved by the involvement of the neighbors. He averred the neighborhood was already well- served by a series of three strategically located collector streets which were adequate to handle the current and projected traffic counts. He felt the need for additional neighborhood traffic capacity was mitigated by the location of this area abutting the urban growth boundary (UGB). With no Eugene neighborhoods beyond to the south and the west, he asserted that adjacent neighborhoods to the north and east were separated and served by existing collectors and this made the designation of another collector in this area redundant. He also believed further development of the Ridgeline Trail system would preclude development in the surrounding area and that the Region 2050 study did not project growth in that direction. He said designation of a new collector and improvements in the infrastructure would encourage more cut-through traffic from the County. He felt the City and its residents should not be assessed for improvements that would only encourage more vehicles to leave existing collectors for perceived shortcuts through residential neighborhoods. He noted the council had decided not to convert a two-block segment of Willamette Street into a two-way street because of neighborhood testimony that it would negatively impact them. Continuing, Mr. Shuler stressed that, without the collector designation, the Crest corridor already received priority ice and snow removal and emergency vehicles were able to traverse every street in the area. He suggested that, if the goal was to increase connectivity and balance, it could best be prioritized through the Sundial Road connection and the 40th Avenue extension projects. He felt the need to repair existing roadways, create pedestrian amenities, and install some form of traffic calming could be accomplished within the existing street designation. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, provided testimony in writing. He suggested that Downtown Eugene, Incorporated (DE1) move its office into the Hilton Hotel. He called the number of businesses that had closed in downtown Eugene, which he estimated to be 150, "horrible." He thought some people should be removed from the Eugene Chamber of Commerce and DEI because they were not doing their jobs. He felt most businesses in the downtown area were bringing in only enough income to make their payrolls. Lisa Warnes, 5020 Nectar Way, came as a representative of her neighborhood. She conveyed their deep concern regarding a 38-acre parcel that bordered Nectar Way, now owned by Joe Green. She explained that he was willing to sell it to the City for $600,000 and she hoped the City would consider purchasing it. She said the land was forested, with a large trail system, and numerous wildlife including Pileated woodpeckers, a sensitive species. She advocated for preservation of the area as it was valuable to everyone in the Eugene/Springfield area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 2 Regular Session John Brown, 1260 Charnelton Street, said he valued the open space in the community and encouraged the City to acquire as much as it could. He wished to address some of the open space that the City already owned, the river front. He related that the previous Saturday morning he counted four encampments and one fire between Valley River Center and Beltline Road and on Sunday morning he counted three camps and a stolen vehicle, partially stripped, parked mere feet from the river. He pointed out that the City owned a jet boat. He felt the City had the resources and the people power to enforce park violations and asked the council to help keep the river clean. Lucy Lahr, 2085 Pierce Street, believed it important that when public money was used for economic development, the City should receive the best return on its investment. She encouraged the City Council to think about what return citizens should get on its investment when tax dollars were diverted into an enterprise zone. She suggested the following standards to strengthen such a zone: 1) Good jobs that pay family wages and not poverty wages; 2) Jobs hired from the local community first; 3) Jobs that provide a career ladder, training, and promotional opportunities; and 4) Good employers who would remain neutral should workers want to form a union. Ms. Lahr advocated for refraining from supporting anti-union employers with public money. She felt there should be a provision that would allow the City to recover its money if employers do not deliver on job creation targets or leave before an agreed upon period of time. Ms. Lahr commented that the recent expensive and "ridiculous" hospital switching between Eugene and Springfield had left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Ms. Lahr submitted written testimony from Ron Teninty, who was unable to testify at the Public Forum. Virginia Starling, 3302 Storey Boulevard, spoke as a representative of concerned citizens of the Crest Drive area. She noted the agenda for the public meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 29, was planned to last three hours, two of which would be a design session for the proposed street classification. She related that neighborhood members had not received any information on street classification designation and the impact of various options. She said neighbors were eager to learn about it. She asked for time on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting to address exactly what street classification options were open to the neighbors and that staff provide documentation of specific parameters for those classifications. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, said he had heard on the news that the City Council was considering a tax increase to pay for the backlog of needed road maintenance and repairs. He expressed concern that citizens could not afford to contribute any more money. He cited an article in The Oregonian from the previous week documenting that expenses had risen four times faster than the median income. He was perplexed that the council was continuing to choose to spend money in a way that was not wise as far as taxpayers were concerned. He felt taxpayers expected the council to spend the tax revenue in an efficient way. He recommended the City cut spending to cover the expense of needed road repairs. Jim Borg, 677 Spyglass, president and owner of Oregon Precision Industries, spoke in regard to the work session scheduled to discuss the enterprise zone. He wished to express his support and share his positive experience as a beneficiary of an existing enterprise zone. He shared that his business had received a loan in 1995 for the sum of $110,000, which it subsequently paid back, and more recently it received a loan for MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 3 Regular Session $250,000 which would be fully paid off in 2006. He explained that his product was shipped out of state and all of the revenue remained here. He said sales had increased from $3 million annually to $13 million annually and the number of employees had increased from 25 to 75. He credited the enterprise zone for helping his business to grow and succeed. He felt the business would have grown without it, but not to the great extent the zone had enabled. He offered to provide more information should councilors wish to contact him. Gary Gillespie, 790 East 23rd Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Program Committee of the Eugene/Springfield Solidarity Network (ESSN). He said ESSN was the "Jobs With Justice" affiliate working on the establishment as a critical component of economic development. He strongly encouraged the council to include the following concepts as an integral part of any enterprise zone designation: 1) There should be a required threshold of number of jobs per investment; 2) The jobs should be markedly above the County median and should pay benefits markedly above the County median; 3) The publicly subsidized jobs should have the opportunity for promotion and a career ladder; 4) All publicly subsidized employers should agree to union neutrality and card check recognition clauses; 5) No public funds should be used by employers to wage anti-union campaigns; 6) Contract negotiations not completed in six months should be subject to binding arbitration; 7) Hiring practices should include affirmative action and should stress the hiring of locals and this money should not be used to move businesses from Eugene to Springfield or other parts of Lane County; and 8) Should benefactors of this public funding fail to deliver, they should have to reimburse the City. Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, felt vandalism on campaign signs had reached excessive levels. He asked the City Council to raise the visibility of this issue prior to the next election. He asserted it could not be treated as a student prank and advocated for taking a more proactive stance. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, asked for council support for a comprehensive public process for planning future uses of the Union Pacific rail yard. He recommended this planning be supported in the next Planning Commission work plan. He averred that Eugene had benefited from such public process in previous planning endeavors, citing in particular the work on downtown planning. Sharon Banks, 1010 Main Street, Springfield, thanked the City of Eugene for continuing to use 20 percent biodiesel, a renewable resource, to fuel the City's diesel vehicles and equipment and for the recent decision to replace the 80-percent fraction with ultra-low sulfur diesel with an Environmental Protection Agency-approved catalyst. She stated that this blend of diesel was cleaner and more cost-effective. She said the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) secured a grant to reimburse Eugene five cents per gallon to offset the cost. She averred this fuel would improve the air quality of Eugene by reducing diesel particulates by up to 25 percent, reducing oxides of nitrogen by 10 percent, and by reducing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, as well. Ms. Banks wished to especially thank Carlos Davis, Keith Nicholson, and the staff at Fleet Services for helping to make this change. She said LRAPA would continue to work with public fleets and then would focus on private fleets to implement to this new fuel. In closing, she lauded Eugene for leading the way. Councilor Bettman closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 4 Regular Session Councilor Pap6 said, regarding the availability of acreage south of town, he would appreciate a memorandum from the City Manager. He recalled that the City had an opportunity earlier on to buy the property for $325,000. He thought purchasing it for $600,000 would be a misuse of public funds. Councilor Pap6 appreciated that Crest Drive neighbors came to testify. He said he would like more information on whether there were other neighborhoods on the periphery of the City that had arterials or collectors running through them. Continuing, Councilor Pap6 thanked Mr. Borg for speaking about enterprise zones. He felt the testimony to be very valuable as it spoke eloquently about the benefits of such a zone. Regarding the rail yard, Councilor Pap6 said the City would like to conduct updated planning for all of the city. He welcomed Mr. Handy's input in the Budget Committee process to see if funding could be found for such planning. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone who came before the council and testified. He noted that one thing he heard in the Crest Drive statement was that current standards could be disregarded because they were about to be revised. He asked the City Manager to provide a memorandum in order to clarify what standards were being used. Councilor Kelly related that his understanding of enterprise zones was that they were entirely based upon the forgiveness of property taxes. He asked staff to clarify that for him as Mr. Borg's testimony had indicated he received loans through the zone. Councilor Kelly noted that The Register-Guard had called the property that bordered Nectar Way one of the most distinctive natural areas remaining in Eugene. He hoped the City would give every attention to its importance as part of the Ridgeline Trail system. Regarding the political lawn sign vandalism, Councilor Kelly suggested looking to the City Recorder's office to issue a clear statement regarding such signs. City Manager Dennis Taylor felt this was the appropriate response. Councilor Kelly said much time was spent talking about available land supply and land development. While he realized that the rail yard carded significant challenges, he also felt it carried tremendous opportunity over the long haul as it was approximately 400 acres and centrally located. He expressed distress at staff's response that the City had no money to purchase the property and that it was waiting for someone to offer to buy it. He encouraged staff to be proactive. Councilor Meisner thanked everyone who testified. He shared that he walked along the river path and that Mr. Brown was correct: there were continuing and escalating problems. He noted that the Budget Committee approved and the council ratified fee increases to restore the river bank clean-up program. He requested a memorandum providing a status report as well as information on what is currently not working. Councilor Meisner said, with respect to the River Road/Santa Clara area, that it was an opportunity site and required the City's interest in planning. He acknowledged there were many steps to take, including annexation. He related that he worked constantly with Union Pacific Railroad, mostly on passenger rail MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 5 Regular Session issues. He stated that all of the delays in passenger rail were attributable to freight use. He commented that Union Pacific Railroad reported momhly in Salem that one of its continuing problems, in hindsight, lay with its decision to abandon the freight yards of Eugene. He felt there was no absolute assurance that Union-Pacific Railroad would not restore some of its activities there, nor would it likely ever entirely vacate the rail yards. He also thought it was unlikely that the area would ever be easily accessible. Councilor Taylor thanked all those who spoke in the Public Forum. She expressed hope that the City could act hastily on the 38-acre parcel, adding that it could be obtained through condemnation if necessary. Councilor Taylor asked the City Manager if it was possible to provide the information Ms. Starling requested at the beginning of the public meeting with Crest neighbors on September 29. Councilor Taylor felt that the City needed to make it clear that vandalizing political signs was a crime. Continuing, Councilor Taylor shared her skepticism regarding enterprise zones. She thought the suggestions made by ESSN were very important as the community should receive something in return for their investment. She was also curious aborn the loan program. She opined that making loans to small businesses was a good idea, but could be done without an enterprise zone. Councilor Bettman thanked those who testified. She noted that testimony from the Crest Drive neighborhood indicated they had not received all of the answers they were seeking. City Manager Taylor responded that, to his knowledge, all questions asked at the previous meeting had been answered in writing prior to seven days before the next meeting, as requested. Councilor Bettman was encouraged by information that neighbors would be able to participate in a design charette. While she recognized there was still the issue of street designation as local or connector, she encouraged the participants to select a section of street and design it just the way they wanted it. She affirmed she would be attending the meeting. Regarding the enterprise zone, Councilor Bettman conveyed her appreciation for Mr. Borg's testimony. She asked staff to take the comments from everyone who spoke about economic development and respond to them. She alleged that community standards had been brought before the Economic Development Committee and staff had "veered" committee members away from them. Councilor Bettman agreed with Mr. Brown that crime and litter along the river from was a big issue. She said the larger issue was that there were not enough places for homeless people to live. She predicted that the council, with a new mayor and two new councilors, would be able to address the issue more "holistically." 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes September 13, 2004, Work Session September 13, 2004, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 6 Regular Session C. Approval of Resolution 4812 Amending Eugene City Council Operating Agreements and Repealing Resolution Number 4777 Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. City Manager Taylor pointed out that staff had provided copies of the corrected Operating Agreements to the council. He added that it was not necessary to vote to amend the resolution as the corrections were not substantive. Councilor Pap6 offered the following correction to the minutes of the Regular Session of the Eugene City Council held on September 13, 2004: · Page 8, paragraph 10: "Councilor Pap6 wanted to know what the ~property owners thought prior to voting. He opined that the repercussions would go far beyond this street project. He suggested that it was not the highest priority safety item in the City and it would turn back some of the good will of the residents the City had worked hard to establish should the City force annexation." No one objected to the correction. Councilor Kelly noted he had submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Councilor Bettman said that, without objection, they were approved. Councilor Meisner also submitted a correction via email. Councilor Bettman deemed the correction, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman said she submitted corrections to the minutes by email. Seeing no objections, she deemed them approved. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 7 Regular Session ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 29, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6 Jennifer Solomon. Council President Bonny Bettman, presiding in the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Ballot Measure 37 City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that he asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to address Ballot Measure 37 because the council had postponed action on a recommendation from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations until it could have a discussion on the matter. Mr. Klein provided an overview of Measure 37 and the issues with which the City would have to cope if the measure passed. He reminded the council that he and staff would speak from a neutral position and only provide factual information. He drew the council's attention to agenda item summary attachment B that contained a summary of Measure 37. He said that Measure 37 was similar to Measure 7, but different in two primary ways: 1. Measure 37 was a statutory change, not a constitutional amendment, and the types of legal chal- lenges brought against Measure 7 would not apply. If Measure 37 passed it was likely to be in ef- fect for some time. While the Legislature had the authority to change the measure, it was uncer- tain whether changes more substantive than cleaning up language would occur. 2. Measure 37 explicitly stated that government had the authority to waive the regulation. The measure stated that if property was owned prior to the time a covered regulation went into effect and if the regulation reduced the value of the property, an owner generally was entitled to either just compensation or to have the regulation waived. Measure 7 suggested but did not state that waiver was an option. Mr. Klein said that Measure 37 applied to land use regulations and included a number of exemptions such as public nuisance and protection of public health and safety. He noted that stream setbacks were likely to be covered by the measure. He said that the City had 180 days to respond to a claim and options were: pay the claim, waive the regulation, or do nothing and allow the owner to take the matter to court. Continuing, Mr. Klein related that Measure 37 granted jurisdictions the right to adopt processes for filing claims, although it did not require claimants to follow the process in order to file a claim with the court. He said that a list of changes requested of the Legislature to improve Measure 37 would be developed, including the minimum requirements for filing a claim. He said another issue likely to arise under Measure 37 was how to respond to regulation waiver requests from owners of property outside of the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 1 Work Session limits and inside of the urban growth boundary (UGB). He indicated that staff would develop recommen- dations about how the City should process claims should Measure 37 pass, based on the assumption that it would be the council's decision whether to pay a claim or waive regulations and that authority would not be delegated to staff, although that option could be discussed. Mr. Klein identified the consequences of waiving a regulation as another unclear aspect of Measure 37. He said the measure did not address whether a regulation was entirely eliminated for a piece of property and nothing applied, or whether regulations in effect prior to the waived regulation would then be in place. He stated that if the measure passed staff would return very quickly following the election with recom- mendations for actions prior to the effective date of the measure, which could necessitate some modifica- tions to the mandated time period for public notice. City Manager' Taylor underscored his intent to hold a work session the day following the election if the measure passed in order to consider recommendations from staff for processing claims in an expedited timeframe. Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Klein for his presentation. He commented that if Measure 37 passed, Eugene would no longer be a livable community over time. He said that zoning and planning were implemented to provide certainty and predictability to homeowners and business owners about what could happen on their property and surrounding property; Measure 37 eliminated that predictability. He gave the example of a neighborhood where homeowners had owned property for 3 years, 15 years, and 40 years respectively and each had a different basis for a claim. He said that Eugene could face tens of millions of dollars in claims and without the funds to pay claims would be forced to waive regulations. He said waivers could include buffers between uses, height limitations in viewscapes, and limits on residential density. Mr. Meisner remarked that Mr. Kelly had not overstated the risk of Measure 37 and asked if the assessment of claims based on length of ownership was accurate. Mr. Klein replied that an owner could request waiver of a regulation as long as the regulation was adopted after the person or family had owned the land. Mr. Meisner clarified that a waiver was for application to a particular piece of property and not elimina- tion of the regulation entirely. Mr. Klein agreed with that, and said that the waiver could possibly apply only to the specific owner that requested the waiver. Mr. Meisner asked if the City could repeal a regulation to avoid endless claims related to a specific provision. Mr. Klein responded that the City could repeal land use regulations as long as the action was consistent with Statewide planning goals and statutes. Ms. Solomon commented that the reason Measure 37 was on the ballot was because governments across the state had been enacting regulations on property that devalued owners' ability to use their properties as they wished. She said that she did not think that Measure 37 was unreasonable and owners were entitled to just compensation. She said she supported Measure 37 and would vote against the resolution. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly regarding the retroactive aspect of Measure 37 and the resulting checkerboard of land use regulations through the City. He asked who would have the burden of proof for devaluation of a property. Mr. Klein replied that if the matter went to court the property owner would have to provide evidence of the reduction in value and the City would have to challenge that claim. He said the City could establish procedures that provided for a regulatory waiver or payment of a claim if the owner complied with specific requirement, s, although an owner could go to court if the City declined MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 2 Work Session to act. Mr. Pap6 stated he would support the resolution but urged the council to consider Ms. Solomon's comments. He said he would advocate opposing Measure 37 and pressuring the State to make reform of land use planning and regulations a top priority. Ms. Nathanson observed that land use regulations were adopted by majority vote by elected officials who were thinking about the interests of individual property owners, residents, and business owners and the well-being of everyone in the community now and in the future. She said that she was sympathetic to complaints from individual property owners and looked for ways to mitigate the detrimental impact of a regulation but still achieve generally the desired result; however, in a democratic form of government some individuals would be disadvantaged by efforts to meet the needs of the whole over time. She asked how and by whom claims of reduction in value would be processed to determine their validity and to what extent a land use regulation was responsible for the reduction. Mr. Klein replied that when a claim was filed in court, a property owner likely would need to provide evidence in the form of a professional assessment of the reduction in value and reasons for it to support a claim. Ms. Nathanson asked what the consequences were if waiving a regulation for one property owner devalued adjacent property. Mr. Klein said that the City's waiver of a regulation for a property owner under Measure 37 would not give rise to a Measure 37 claim by an adjacent property owner. He said it was possible to establish procedures that would allow the adjacent property owner to bring a private cause of action against the property owner whose waiver request resulted in devaluation. Ms. Nathanson asked how the City would waive a regulation it had adopted in order to be consistent with Statewide planning goals. Mr. Klein said that Measure 37 prevailed over other State statutes and would allow the City to be consistent with State statutes as a whole, even though it had waived the regulation. Ms. Taylor stated her support for the resolution in opposition to Measure 37 and said it was clear that the measure would be harmful to the City. Referring to the retroactive aspect of the measure, she asked if building being allowed on panhandle lots that decreased the value of neighbors property would give those neighbors claims under Measure 37. Mr. Klein replied that Measure 37 only provided property owners the right to file a claim on restrictions on the use of their property; neighbors' claims could not be based on uses on adjacent property as it was not a restriction on use of their property. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Solomon's comments regarding an owner's expectations about the value of his or her property and just compensation for a decrease in value; however, Measure 37 went too far in some areas and for that reason he was in favor of passing the resolution. He noted that the people of Eugene had voted 68 percent against Measure 7. Ms. Bettman characterized Measure 37 as institutionalized anarchy that would destroy the livability of Oregon and at the very least was one-sided. She commented that if an argument could be made that a regulation diminished property values, there was a concomitant argument that many decisions were made by the council that vastly increased the profitability of property and governing bodies were not remuner- ated for those decisions. She said that zoning regulations and land use laws had created the value of property and when the ability to regulate for livability and compatibility was removed it destroyed property values. She said there would be a window of profitability for advocates of Measure 37 to cash in on the years of protection for property values by zoning and land use regulations before all property values began to decline. She said she would support the resolution in opposition to Measure 37. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly applauded Ms. Nathanson's remarks and said Measure 37 was breaking the agreements of a civilized society. He agreed with Ms. Solomon's comments that in some instances government regulation had been heavy-handed and gone too far, but the solution for Eugene rested with the council, which could modify regulations. He expressed surprise that Ms. Solomon would support Measure 37. Mr. Meisner remarked that the council did not typically act to affect the value of a single property and Measure 37 would involve a significant change in the council's role. He asked Mr. Klein to consider as part of the analysis of Measure 37 impacts whether annexation was a land use action that could be challenged as it was required as a condition of building a home. Mr. Pap6 reiterated his support of the resolution. In response to Ms. Bettman's comments that jurisdic- tions were not compensated for decisions that increased property values, he pointed out that some return was realized through property taxes on the increased values. He commented that Measure 37 was also supported by rural property owners, not just developers. Ms. Solomon thanked the council for a thorough and respectful discussion of the issues. She agreed with Mr. Pap6's remarks about the revenue the City realized from the increased values of property affected by a land use decision. Ms. Bettman closed the discussion. B. ACTION: Consideration of Resolution 4810 to Oppose the November 2004 General Election Ballot Measure 37 by the Eugene City Council Ms. Bettman called for a vote on Resolution 4810. The resolution was adopted, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Economic Development Committee Recommendations Regarding an Enterprise Zone City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle to discuss the item. Mr. Coyle said the recommendation represented the second of four recommendations by the Mayor's Economic Development Committee and referred to the details included in the agenda packet. He highlighted some of the issues regarding the recommendation. He said the recommendation was based on the City's historic use of enterprise zones as an economic development tool. He introduced Denny Braud with the Community Development Division, who worked closely with the committee on its recommenda- tion. Mr. Braud used a PowerPoint presentation to describe the Oregon Enterprise Zone Program. He indicated there were 49 active zones in Oregon with four of those located in Lane County: Springfield, Cottage Grove, Florence, and Oakridge. He related that the State limited the number of enterprise zones to 49 and there was a competitive application process when a zone expired. He said two zones would expire in 2005 and provide an opportunity for the City to apply. He reviewed the eligibility criteria for businesses to qualify for a tax exemption within the zone: MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 4 Work Session · Eligibility criteria o Manufacturing, processing, distribution, warehouse (examples of ineligible businesses: retail, professional services, health care) c> Increase employment by ten percent; permanent, full-time jobs; maintain ten percent in- crease over the life of the exemption o New investment in building and machinery/equipment both qualify for tax exemption · Tax exemption o Three-year, 100 percent property tax exemption only on new investment within the zone; land, existing buildings and equipment already on the tax roles were not eligible c) Five-year extended investment available under certain conditions such as higher wages and required special local approval o Disqualification for exemption if a business ceased operations, curtailed employment, or moved equipment Mr. Braud cited statistical information related to the expired West Eugene Enterprise Zone, noting that 57 companies participated in the zone and 47 companies were still operating in Eugene. He reported on the average new investment and three-year tax exemption, excluding Hynix and HMT, and said that most of the companies involved in the zone were small- to medium-sized local companies that were already existing in Eugene. He used the example of Custom Craftworks, which was generating over $26,000 in new property taxes annually following the three-year tax exemption period. He also cited statistics for Hynix, which had a $1.56 million tax exemption in 2004 and paid $6.3 million in taxes. Mr. Braud reported that the committee's recommendations included establishing an enterprise zone based on the boundaries of the previous zone with the inclusion of a small amount of adjacent industrial property and possible additional local conditions for greenfield development. He said that the committee expressed an interest in requiring businesses to satisfy other conditions, including: · 100 percent tax exemption for redevelopment, infill, brownfield development · 67 percent tax exemption for greenfield development, which could be increased under certain job quality standards Mr. Braud said the committee had struggled with the question of whether all tax exemptions should be conditioned on paying higher than average wages because of the bias against small businesses that could create. He said the next steps included further definition of local criteria, seeking Lane County support as a portion of the proposed zone was outside of City limits and within the urban growth boundary, draft an application to the State, obtain resolutions in support of the application from the council and Lane County, and submit the application in spring 2005. He said the goal was to have a zone in place by July 2005. Ms. Taylor commented that the agenda item summary statement that the committee's report was accepted by a vote of 7:0 was misleading because it suggested that the council was in support of an enterprise zone. She felt that sustainability was misused as a reason because it did not equal growth. She asked how much HMT paid in taxes. Mr. Braud replied that HMT had been disqualified and were subject to repayment of the three-year tax exemption of approximately $500,000. Ms. Taylor asked if the City already had the authority to grant a tax exemption if a business wanted to develop a brownfield, using downtown businesses as an example. City Manager Taylor responded that there was no tax exemption for brownfield development and the downtown businesses had been provided incentives through urban renewal tax increment financing or multi-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE). MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor commented that the City could not distinguish between desirable and undesirable businesses in an enterprise zone, using HMT as an example of an undesirable business that had no stability and low- paying jobs that did not fit the goal of financial stability. She questioned whether growth with all of its problems and needs should be encouraged. She preferred to concentrate on what businesses already existed in the community and what were their needs for assistance with retention or further development might be, as well as what was compatible with what already existed. Mr. Kelly agreed that an enterprise zone could be a good economic development tool and enjoyed support in the community. He questioned whether the enterprise zone could be properly targeted so it benefited community residents. He expressed concern that the State statutes and administrative rules were so constraining that a local enterprise zone could not be defined to bring clear community benefit. He said he would support a zone if clear definitions could be developed. He described two hypothetical situations and asked if each was permissible under an enterprise zone: · an existing local company outside of the enterprise zone with 50 employees mostly earning $8-$9 per hour decided to build a larger plant on a vacant greenfield site within the zone and expand its workforce by 10 people, thereby qualifying for a 67 percent tax exemption on the new building even though it paid wages that were not livable in the community · a company in Idaho with 25 employees mostly earning $8-$9 per hour decided to relocate to Eugene and build a plant on a vacant site within the zone, thereby qualifying for a 67 percent tax exemption on the new facility even though the number of employees and wages would not change and many of the Idaho employees relocated with the business Mr. Braud agreed that both businesses would qualify for a tax exemption. Mr. Pap6 said the question for him was why the City would not apply for an enterprise zone when its previous program and zones in other communities were successful. He noted that 82 percent of the businesses that participated in Eugene's previous zone were still operating in the community. He said that an enterprise zone was a legitimate tool for economic development that served communities well. He asked why the committee had not recommended inclusion of more of the downtown area and whether the committee had suggested conditions for a five-year extended exemption. Mr. Braud replied that the types of companies that would qualify were primarily located in industrial areas and that was why downtown was not included. He indicated that time constraints prevented the committee from exploring conditions for the five-year extension. Mr. Pap6 asked for recommendations on conditions or qualifications for the extension if the council had another work session on the subject of an enterprise zone. Mr. Meisner remarked that while he had questions about the efficacy of enterprise zones he would likely support the motion to direct staff to return to the council with an application package. He said he did not understand why the City would undertake an enterprise zone program without proof of financial capability from businesses. He stated he objected to inclusion in the zone boundary of the triangle south of First Avenue, north of the railroad tracks, west of Jefferson Street, and east of Polk Street because it had been designated largely for mixed-use and was across the street from exclusively residential properties and was suspicious of the inclusion of specific parcels within the expanded boundary. Mr. Braud responded that the committee did not do a parcel-by-parcel analysis of boundary expansion; it included all industrial property that was adjacent to the old boundary. Ms. Nathanson referred to the committee's concern that conditioning tax exemptions on paying higher MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 6 Work Session than average wages could bias the program against small businesses. She said she was not convinced that most local businesses would be infill or redevelopment and qualify for the 100 percent exemption because of the lack of available sites in industrial areas. She noted that a number of businesses had left the community over the past few years and, while some of those had received assistance from the City, there was nothing that could be done to guarantee that every business would survive and thrive beyond due diligence to assure that an investment was sound. She felt that focusing on a business that left, such as HMT, was not sufficient to justify questioning the worthiness of an entire program. She agreed with Mr. Kelly's concerns about the hypothetical situations, but encouraged the council to continue to discuss the wage aspect of new jobs. Mr. Poling asked if enterprise zones were required to enter into a first source hiring agreement. Mr. Braud said that all businesses that applied for the tax exemption signed an agreement to use the Oregon Employment Department as part of their j ob referral and hiring process, although they were not obligated to hire all employees through that program. Mr. Poling commented that HMT's departure did not appear to be a purposeful effort to avoid its obligations and should not be used as an example that an enterprise zone did not work. He said that a zone was one of many tools for economic development in the community and the council should not pass it up. He observed that growth would happen and hoped that the City would use available tools to shape and control it. Mr. Poling said the enterprise zone application process was highly competitive because communities recognized the value of a zone and it was important for Eugene to apply. Ms. Solomon stated that she fully supported the concept of an enterprise zone and would vote in favor of the motion. She asked if the two businesses in Mr. Kelly's hypothetical examples would still be paying the base property tax and only exempted for taxes on the increase in value of the property. Mr. Braud replied that was correct, and the businesses would be fully taxed in the fourth year following expiration of the exemption. Referring to the use of public funds, Ms. Solomon said that the City could not give away what it did not have if the land was currently vacant and not generating revenue. She said the zone would enable development that would generate more revenue in the long-term and that was a prudent decision for the City to make. She noted that there had been no complaints from business owners about enterprise zones and she hoped the committee's recommendation would move forward. Ms. Bettman responded to Ms. Solomon's comments about not giving away what the City did not have. She suggested the comment should be reconsidered the next time the council cut services in the budget process because any entity that located in Eugene required City services and the tax cap would not recover enough to cover those services and they were paid for by diminished services to the rest of the community. She expressed concern about the committee's discussion of the perception that the City was anti-business and did not have a unified vision for economic development that reflected divisions within the community. She said that the council had an opportunity to modify a strategy in a way that would allow different aspects of the community to agree, but that was not the recommendation that was before the council. She said that when the issues was returned to the council it had an opportunity to incorporate into the proposal standards the community was asking for and obtain almost unanimous support on the council. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to direct the city manager to proceed with application to establish an enterprise zone in Eugene, jointly sponsored with and supported by Lane County, based on the recommen- dation of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development, and consis- MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 7 Work Session tent with State of Oregon guidelines. The application package will return to the council for approval in advance of the Spring 2005 State of Oregon application deadline. Mr. Meisner moved to amend the motion by striking the single boundary expansion in the area bounded south of First Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, north of the railroad tracks, and east of Van Buren Street. Mr. Pol- ing and Mr. Pap6 accepted the motion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor urged the council to consider what would contribute to the social fabric of the community and not increase the need for social services and subsidized housing if help was provided to an industry. She felt that HMT was a good example of problems that occurred with the previous zone because of the low wages paid to employees. She said if the State guidelines could be changed and the proposal had reasonable standards for businesses that received assistance the zone could be considered. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the staff motion so it applied to redevelopment, infill, and brownfield sites only. Ms. Bettman explained that her motion would provide a community benefit in terms of leveraging the public subsidy and redevelopment of those sites would help use land more efficiently. Mr. Poling asked if the motion was consistent with State guidelines. Mr. Klein indicated he would determine if Ms. Bettman's motion was consistent with State guidelines for enterprise zones if it passed. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to table to the October 11, 2004, work session because of time constraints and need for a response from Mr. Klein. Mr. Meisner requested that staff provide a sense of what the proposed zone boundary would look like on the ground at the next work session. The motion to table to a time certain passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 8 Work Session