Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A - Minutes ApprovalEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: December 6, 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 October 25, 2004, Work Session, and October 27, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. October 25, 2004, Work Session B. October 27, 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\M041206\S0412062A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall October 25, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pap~, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Torrey solicited items from the council. Mr. Meisner said he attended Eugene Library Foundation member Tom Wiper's funeral service earlier that day at First United Methodist Church. It had been a moving service. He thanked Council Coordina- tor Lynda Rose for drafting a sympathy letter to Mr. Wiper's family on behalf of the council, and thanked the councilors for signing the letter. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mr. Poling reported that he and Mr. Pap~ attended the recent dedication of Bertha Holt Elementary School. He commended the good behavior of the children in attendance, who sat on the floor attentively throughout the entire ceremony, and noted that several members of the Holt family had been in atten- dance. He thanked School District 4J for inviting him to the dedication. Ms. Bettman said she consistently raised concerns about money available for preservation and mainte- nance being spent on other transportation projects, and she recalled that the council agreed to focus its metropolitan planning organization dollars on preservation and maintenance. She had opposed the Friendly-Monroe bicycle project at the Metropolitan Policy Committee because of that policy; the mayor supported it. The project, which was in her ward, appeared to consist of little more than signage. Ms. Bettman asked about the source of the local match, and why the project, which was originally allocated $240,000, now was allocated $175,000. She asked what happened to the rest of the money, and questioned the use of funds at a time the council was discussing creating a new transportation mainte- nance fee. Ms. Bettman asked when the new Community Task Force would receive the racial profiling task force report. She also asked about the date of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) meeting when the homelessness update would be presented, or if the council could receive a similar update. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated he would follow up. Ms. Taylor had no items. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Speaking to Ms. Bettman's information request, Mr. Kelly said the HRC had, as part of its work plan development, discussed the issue of homelessness but he was unaware of any presentation being planned. He reported that there was an HRC work group looking at the intersection between mental health issues and homelessness. Mr. Kelly reminded the council that the Human Rights Commissioners had established council contacts, and asked the councilors to return phone calls from their commission contacts because they were often seeking cOuncil input on particular human rights topics. City Manager Dennis Taylor had no items. Mayor Torrey noted the controversy surrounding the proposed Santa Clara Park, and said if the public did not want a regional park in that area he wanted to ensure that the council had a sense of that soon so that planning could begin for a park in another location to serve the neighborhood. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up. Mayor Torrey said he attended a Local Officials' Advisory Committee meeting and it was made clear to participants that Governor Ted Kulongoski's.office would not request new taxes for operations, maintenance, and preservation from the State legislature. He said the council should be prepared to act on its own to maintain local roads. B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Amending the November 1999 Street Classification Map Adopted by Ordinance No. 20181 to Designate Collector Streets in the Crest Drive Neighbor- hood City Manager Taylor recalled that when the council last discussed the item, it directed staff to do further outreach to the neighborhood residents potentially affected by the designation of collector streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. He said Public Works staff was present to discuss that outreach and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. City Engineer Mark Schoening was present for the item. He introduced Gary McNeel of the Transporta- tion Division and Rick Satre of Satre & Associates, who was retained by the City to assist with a public outreach effort to neighbors of the Crest Drive area because of his firm's expertise and independent status. Mr. Schoening reviewed the history of the issue, recalling that in 1999 the Planning Commission forwarded a Street Classification Map to the council. That map classified all streets in the city with the exception of the Crest Drive area. The commission recommended the council direct staff to conduct a transportation study in the area before further action was taken. That study had been done. In April 2004, the commission reviewed the results of the study and recommended that portions of Friendly and Crest streets, and Storey and McLean boulevards be classified as neighborhood collectors. Mr. Schoening reminded the council that in April 2004, it directed staff to perform additional public outreach to the neighborhood regarding the recommendation. Mr. Schoening briefly discussed why the City had classifications, saying a hierarchy of streets provided a framework for the comprehensive transportation system serving all modes of travel. The City employed a matrix based on five criteria to classify streets. Those criteria were quantifiable, measurable criteria, including such things as average daily traffic, modes of travel on a street and whether existing or planned, the length of a street, the spacing between parallel streets of like classification, and the connectivity to MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 2 Work Session streets with similar or higher classification. He acknowledged that judgment was involved in applying the criteria, particularly in situations where streets had yet to be constructed. Mr. Schoening reviewed the formats of the two public meetings held with area residents. Mr. McNeel discussed the informal meetings held with residents, during which residents asked City staff to review their traffic study. Staff met with a neighborhood subcommittee and reviewed the study, which was well-done and used sound methodology. Staff had done a walkabout of the area with residents to discuss improvements and how they fit with the landscape. Mr. McNeel said the residents' traffic study provided good data on only a few of the items the City's matrix considered. The study examined traffic volumes, peak periods, and included some intense origin/destination studies. He said some of the entry points used in the study were not considered entry points into the neighborhood by staff because they were mid-point entrances to part of the neighborhood. Ms. Solomon arrived at the meeting. Continuing, Mr. McNeel said that the study's conclusions were not significantly different from those reached by the City's study, and in fact reinforced that study. However, the neighborhood's analysis of the results differed from staff's. The residents believed there was a lot of through traffic using neighbor- hood streets. However, through traffic uses any interconnected street network, and through traffic was a large component of many areas in the community, particularly at the urban fringe. He said the residents concluded that if they could eliminate through traffic, the streets would not need to be classified as collectors. However, it was very difficult to change drivers' behaviors; if they were using the streets through the neighborhood, there was a good reason for that, and that could not be easily changed. In regard to the future street designs, Mr. McNeel said that like the residents, staff also wished to preserve the trees and open drainages in the area and to retain the narrow streets to calm traffic. The Crest Drive Transportation Study, included in the agenda packet, discussed context sensitive design, which was intended to accomplish those goals. Staff proposed to take a context-sensitive approach to the area in question. Mr. McNeel acknowledged that the City continued to receive feedback that it had not responded to all the residents' issues, and he said he would like to know what the City failed to respond to. Mr. Schoening discussed what happened if the streets were classified as local streets rather than as collector streets. He said the streets under consideration now serve as the primary access routes for emergency response to the area and would continue to do so regardless of classification. Traffic calming options were affected by those emergency services. The streets would be the primary routes for snow removal and ice sanding and Lane Transit District buses would still travel down Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard. The streets would continue to collect traffic from the neighborhood and carry it Willamette Street, 28th Avenue, and Chambers Street. Future street improvements for either classification would be initiated by either property owner petition or council action. The street design process would be context- sensitive regardless of the classification. Mr. Schoening said the street design was likely to be the same in either case; the difference between classifications was the City's assessment policies and the funding sources. Mr. Papd arrived at the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Schoening agreed with Mr. McNeel that public input did not result in a change to the scoring on the City's street classification matrix. He said the design workshop was the first step in the context-sensitive design process. Staff would use that work when it began to work on any street design. Mr. Schoening said that those residents who provided input to the City generally wanted the streets classified as local streets. He called the council's attention to a summary of the common ground reached between the City and residents, which was included in the agenda packet. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor said for many residents, cost was not their major concern about the classification of the streets. She asked about the difference in the cost to abutting properties between making the same improvements to a local street as to a collector street. Mr. Schoening said the entire cost of a local street was assessed to the adjoining properties; in the case of a neighborhood collector, the first ten feet of pavement width was assessed to adjoining properties. In the case ora 20-foot street, the amount would be the same. Ms. Taylor suggested residents would not save any money by having the streets designated as a collector. Mr. Schoening said not necessarily. Ms. Taylor noted residents' interest in more stop signs, which she supported. She asked if the streets' designation as collector streets would preclude the potential of a path rather than a sidewalk, and ditches rather than gutters. Mr. Schoening said no. Ms. Taylor asked what the City gained by designating the streets as collector streets. Mr: Schoening said there were more viable funding sources for collector streets, such as federal funding. Ms. Taylor asked what good the other funding did if the property owners paid for the pavement. Mr. Schoening said the funding could pay for the City's share of the cost of the project, including the cost of intersections and street improvements along corner lots and undeveloped frontages greater than 100 feet. Ms. Taylor asked if stop signs placed every three blocks would discourage drivers who lived outside the neighborhood from using the streets. Mr. Schoening said that was not what was found in actual practice. When stop signs were not warranted, drivers simply roll through them and they have no effect. Mr. Meisner said residents appeared to be less concerned about assessments and more about the design and classification of the street and what the future holds in terms of the consequences of the classification. He said the City spent considerable money improving 6th and 7th avenues and the Chambers Connectors so that residents will use those roads to reach the River Road/Santa Clara area, and installed stop signs at various locations in his neighborhood to discourage through traffic. That had not stopped traffic from going through the neighborhood. He averred that 1 st Avenue was not accessible to neighbors "at all" during early morning and evening hours. Mr. Meisner said he had talked about the problem with the Public Works Department but it had not been interested in slowing methods such as traffic calming, stop signs, or signals because 1st Avenue was a major collector. The classification did make a difference over time. Mr. Meisner understood the concerns of the neighborhood. He indicated he was not satisfied with any of the three options before the council. He did not think any of the options satisfied the needs of either the City or the neighborhood. In response to the questions of Ms. Taylor, Mr. McNeel said that the City had spent a lot of money on traffic calming, and much of that was retrofitted to an existing situation. The retrofits were expensive and difficult to do. He said that traffic calming was eligible for systems development charge revenues, but MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 4 Work Session only on neighborhood collectors. Any traffic calming on local streets was paid for through assessments to adjoining property owners. Mr. Pap6 commended the staff materials and applauded the City and neighborhood residents for trying to get together on a solution. Mr. Pap6 asked for more information about the traffic study conducted by the neighborhood. Mr. McNeel said the neighborhood study focused on several access points to the streets in question and analyzed the destination and origin of those trips using a license plate survey. However, the problem was that the study area was smaller than the actual neighborhood itself, meaning there were internal trips that were counted as external trips. However, that was not a major issue for the City. Mr. McNeel noted that the hourly peak period volumes in the neighborhood study were almost identical to the City' s, suggesting the two studies were quite similar. Mr. Pap6 asked about comparative travel times. Mr. McNeel said the residents picked a destination that may or may not be the appropriate destination. In terms of travel demand and where vehicles were likely to be going, he believed a vehicle at the Chambers Drive and Lorane Highway intersection with the option of going down 28th Avenue to the east or south through the neighborhood was likely to use 28th Avenue because it was recently repaved and there was no impediment to movement. In the case of those residents who chose to drive over a heavily potholed street, it was likely they were going to the South Willamette Post Office and Albertsons, and all of those trips would realize significant distance and time savings by using roads through the neighborhood. Mr. Pap6 recalled his request for information about other neighborhoods on the periphery of the community that lacked collector designations. Mr. McNeel said there were no others. He noted other areas at the periphery of the community where streets had been designated as collectors for future purposes. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner that the residents did not seem concerned about assessments at this time, but suggested that could change when assessments were actually under consideration. Mr. Poling referred to the study, which indicated the need for collector status is "at the margin." He asked what that meant. Mr. McNeel said the ranking in the City's matrix came out to be split between a 5 or 6 depending on travel demand assumed for the link. He emphasized that the reference was to a missing link. Mr. Poling referred to an article in that days' edition of The Register-Guard and asked if the City Engineer could determine design standards for unclassified streets. Mr. Schoening said the code allowed the City Engineer to determine the street classification for an unclassified street for assessment purposes. Mr. Poling asked if there was a significant difference in design of the street if designated a collector versus a local street. Mr. Schoening said no. He believed the design could be worked out with the residents. Mr. Poling asked if there was a standard blueprint for a neighborhood collector dictating the elements of the street. Mr. Schoening said yes, but through the context-sensitive design process, those elements could be changed. Mr. Poling said that the label of the street appeared to be the sticking point as the designs for either a local street or a neighborhood collector street in this area would essentially be the same. Mr. Schoening concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 5 Work Session City Manager Dennis Taylor noted that due to the funding sources available, street improvements could also be done more quickly if the streets were classified as collectors rather than classified as local streets. He said that the neighborhood had trust issues, and he thought it would be best if the design could be established soon and the project funded and implemented to ensure that subsequent staff and councils did not try to change it. Ms. Bettman thought the context-sensitive design standards were a good idea and she hoped the Crest Drive neighborhood could be a test case. Ms. Bettman said that in spite of all the work the neighborhood has done, the staff recommendation regarding the street classifications remained unchanged. She understood why the neighborhood was skeptical about the City's future intent because she had a bad experience working on a transportation project with the City herself while serving as a neighborhood organization chair. She preferred to focus on how the City could get to a level of comfort for the affected property owners. Ms. Bettman thought the City could move traffic and emergency vehicles through the neighborhood and accommodate pedestrians and bicycle safety while protecting property values. Ms. Bettman asked about the percentage of through traffic using the streets in question as opposed to internal neighborhood traffic. Mr. Schoening responded that like in other areas of the community, the City did not consider through traffic, but rather considered average daily traffic. A study of the through traffic would be a much more extensive and expensive process. Mr. Kelly thought there was an ultimate value from a system and funding standpoint to dedicating some streets in the neighborhood as collectors, but he shared Mr. Meisner's discontent with the three options before the council. He was not ready to designate the streets as collectors at this point because of the trust issue. He found Ms. Bettman's comments about her experience to be instructive. Mr. Kelly said staff stated the street design would be the same whether local or collector, but given the atmosphere in the neighborhood he did not blame the neighbors for saying "prove it." The City had not reached the point of classifying the streets yet. Mr. Kelly noted the draft administrative rules associated with the design standards were yet to be provided to the council. He suggested that it would be more practical and appropriate for the City to first get the context-sensitive design standards to the public for review and comment and then for the council to adopt them. That would create an official approach to street improvements. Ms. Nathanson believed that the neighborhood in question represented an aberration, not the rule. She pointed out that the City had completed its Street Classification Map with the exception of this area. She believed a street classification was an acknowledgement of reality. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City had ever "turned back the clock" and decided a street that was functioning by objective criteria as a collector street should be reclassified as a local street. Mr. Schoening could not recall such an instance. Mr. McNeel noted that during the 1999 study, staff had decided against identifying a collector in the vicinity of Orchard, Villard, and Walnut streets because of the peculiar street configuration of the three streets directly parallel to each other. In another case, the matrix values for Garden Way indicated a designation of minor arterial, but the street was deliberately classified as a major collector to deemphasize the route for large traffic volumes, and the City did so by designating Commons Drive and Kinsrow Street as neighborhood collectors and included design options to give residents a choice of routes to use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson did not think the City had alternatives in this area as it did in the Garden Way area given the neighborhood topography. She did not think the City had the ability to change reality in this case. Motorists had no other routes to take. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Poling that the council was discussing labels rather than actual street improvement projects. Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Kelly that the City was not ready to go forward. He wanted the council to consider the issue in terms of what it wanted to achieve in the neighborhood. The City should design what it wished to achieve, and find a solution that allowed for that. If the City did not currently have the rules and regulations to achieve the design, it could change them, and the council could change the assessment criteria in a way that allowed the City to take access to different sources of funding. Mayor Torrey said such changes should not be pursued frivolously, but the neighborhood was unique and the issues worthy of further review. He commended staff for its work with the neighborhood. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman maintained that the streets in question met all the standards for exemption in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. She believed the council could already affect the street design, and could choose not to pursue the plan amendments. Given the neighbors were willing to be assessed for a local street, the City could then move easily move forward with a local street design that met the criteria for safety and mobility. She thought that would be the best approach. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. McNeel to discuss the other criteria on the matrix and their significance. Mr. McNeel said that connectivity was one of the most important criteria. Each road in question carried a significant amount of traffic from small local streets and placed it out onto the arterials. He noted that McLean Boulevard was not raised as a topic of concern, and he suspected that was because it was fully improved to City standards already; all that was changing was the classification. Mr. McNeel said that McLean Boulevard gathered a considerable amount of traffic from the area between Lorane Highway and McLean Boulevard because most of those streets did not connect to Lorane Highway and tended to shed traffic downhill. Those streets that collected to Lorane Highway tended to carry traffic down the hill rather than up the hill because that way was more out-of direction. The road also carried considerable traffic to Chambers Street and 28th Avenue, but it was not much different from the other streets in question. Other criteria include spacing between similarly designated streets and the length of the segment. Speaking to the issue of the length of the segment, Mr~ McNeel said that could be more than the street segment in question, and really needed to be considered as the route. In regard to spacing between similarly designated streets, Mr. McNeel pointed out a perfect grid would have equally spaced collector streets, but there was no perfect grid in the south hills. For that reason, one has to do some meandering, and staff concentrated on the segments that people actually used, which made the issue of average daily traffic important. Travel demand would seek the least line of resistance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend time for the item by six minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Mayor Torrey. He said the City should design what the council wanted to achieve for the neighborhood. For that reason, he did not think the council needed to amend the map now. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly asked staff to respond to the following questions when the council next considered the item: 1) when could the City Council expect to see the street design standards mentioned in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan; 2) how the streets under consideration scored against the matrix; 3) why Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard were being proposed for reclassification; and 4) a citation on why stop signs would not change driver behavior. Mr. Pap6 asked if traffic studies had been done for Garden Way following the improvements. Mr. Schoening said no, as the improvements were only recently completed. Staff usually waited for a couple of months to pass before doing such a study. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the City produce design standards for the neighborhood in question and then the council could address the trust issue by passing an ordinance specific to the area and referencing the neighborhood association. He questioned if that would have an effect on financing. Mr. Schoening questioned why the City would want to limit an ordinance to the area in question as there may other neighborhoods where such an approach may be appropriate. Mr. Pap6 said that perhaps it would be the start of a new paradigm for how the City addressed such issues. Mr. Pap6 said that trust was achieved through consistency. He believed the council needed to proceed with the caution. Although he did not think the council needed to amend the plan at this time, it needed to do so at some time because the rest of the community was following the issue. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the types of traffic calming that could be used on steep collector streets, Mr. McNeel said the City could use speed tables in the form of raised intersections or raised crosswalk and bulb-outs and chicanes to shift traffic horizontally. He said that the City would not be able to use all the options contained in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan, such as diverters and speed bumps, because it was unlikely they would be supported by the emergency services providers. Ms. Taylor suggested the council could shift the priority of any local street improvements in the area to ensure that improvements were done earlier than otherwise. Mr. Schoening concurred. Ms. Taylor indicated her concurrence with the remarks of Mayor Torrey. C. WORK SESSION: Information Technology Strategies and Issues Information Services Director Randy Kolb provided a presentation on key strategies and issues related to information technology at the City of Eugene. Among the key strategies that Mr. Kolb emphasized were the City's information technology partnerships with other agencies, its investments in e-government, its investments in automated business systems, document production and distribution services, the AIRS (Area Information Records System) public safety and justice record system, and various projects funded by the City's telecommunications tax. Mr. Kolb noted the challenges facing the division in the form of adequate funding, the AIRS conversion to newer technology, the expanded access to data but increased risk created by less secure wireless technologies, the potential of additional legal challenges to the City's telecommunications tax, and the anticipated Congressional review of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly commended the increasing number of City applications that were now available on line and the progress that had been made toward e-government. Regarding the list of proposed telecommunications projects, Mr. Kelly noted the development of criteria guiding expenditures in 1997, and said while the list of projects was good, he proposed that the council revisit the criteria soon given the amount of money in the Telecommunications Fund and the time that has passed. He asked when that discussion could occur. City Attorney Glenn Klein recommended that the council await the outcome of the petition for reconsideration made to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Qwest v. Portland case. That could happen in the next two or three months. If that happens, the case would be returned to the courts. He recommended the council discuss the criteria in the spring. Mr. Kolb noted that staff supported a council review of the criteria. Mr. Kelly asked if the criteria were adopted by the council. Mr. Klein recalled that the criteria were staff- proposed and reviewed and approved by the Council Committee on Telecommunications. Ms. Nathanson concurred. Mr. Klein said the criteria were developed in conjunction with the telecommunications ordinance because of a need to create a nexus between the funding and the projects, as required by Ballot Measure 47/50. Mr. Kelly said he had heard a constituent complaint that different areas on the web site have different designs and navigation styles. He asked if there was a project underway to change that. Mr. Kolb said yes, the City was conducting a Portal Project to achieve a more uniform look and feel. Ms. Solomon suggested the potential of having bi-weekly polls on various City issues on the City's web site, noting there were mechanisms to prevent double-voting. Mr. Kolb said that the City's portal would be capable of hosting such polls, and agreed there were ways of guaranteeing people only voted once. He said he would follow up on the suggestion with staff. Ms. Taylor asked if the telecommunications tax revenues could be transferred to the General Fund. Mr. Klein indicated there were restrictions on the funds, but he would have to do more research to answer fully. Ms. Taylor asked about the relationship of the telecommunications project list to the Capital Improvement Program, which was listed on page 33 of the agenda packet as an origin for projects on the list. Mr. Kolb said staff reviewed various plans to determine where needs might exist, and that included the Capital Improvement Program. He cited undergrounding of utilities as an example of such a project. Ms. Taylor wanted to transfer some of the revenues from the Telecommunications Fund to the General Fund so they could be used where most needed. Ms. Taylor asked if the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department voice response system would mean the elimination of all human contact. Mr. Kolb said no, it would merely serve as another avenue for patron access. Patrons would have an option as to how they wished to reach services, whether in person, on the web, or over the telephone. The choice was the patron' s. Ms. Taylor said it appeared to be another way of irritating people. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly about the need for the council to reconsider the criteria. She said the project list contained many valuable projects, but she believed there were one or two projects on the list that did not meet the criteria, such as the selective undergrounding of utilities. She also opposed the City's new cable program, "Working City," which she termed an "unentertaining commercial" for the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 9 Work Session of Eugene, and suggested that more advisory committee meetings, town hall meetings, and neighborhood organization meetings be cablecast instead. She wanted the projects to reflect the council's priorities. Ms. Bettman encouraged staff to revise the mission statement or operating principles to reflect the overriding objective that all public information should be easily accessible to the public. Mr. Kolb concurred. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Kolb that the telecommunications revenues were to be spent on new telecommunications-related projects. Mr. Pap6 asked if that could be changed before spring. Mr. Klein said he would have to get back to him on that question. Mr. Pap6 endorsed staff's work on the portal project. He determined from Mr. Kolb that work on enhancing access to council meeting packets was in progress. Ms. Nathanson said e-government was difficult to accomplish, and she was very interested in what staff was doing. She said that more demands were being placed on local government and people wanted access to information more often and they wanted to have more choices about how to do so. That left the question of how to provide more choices and services in a time of limited revenue. Given population growth, the City had to do more with the same amount of money. She shared Ms. Taylor's concern about the lack of human contact, but was more comfortable it was one of many options as the City tried to be responsive to growing service demand. Ms. Nathanson said she was eager to see more progress in getting important and informative staff reports placed on the web. She believed that would assist in reducing the amount of time staff had to spend in responding to questions. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall October 27, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap& Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Economic Development Committee Recommendations Regarding Updates to the City Code City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated that thc work session was another on thc recommendations of thc Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. Thc focus of the work session was on Chapter 9 of thc Eugene Land Usc Code. Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle noted thc recommendation before thc council was thc third of four recommendations forwarded by thc committee. Thc recommendation regarded the predict- ability of outcomes associated with permitting. Thc committee discussed some principles to guide the City's review of thc Land Usc Code. Mr. Coylc called thc council's attention to thc seven principles that thc committee wanted to sec applied as thc City went through its next code update, described in thc council's Agenda Item Summary (AIS) as follows: · Intuitive. Staff and thc public find thc code difficult and confusing, and it is likely mom complex than it needs to bc to achieve the City's goals. A thoughtful audit of the effectiveness of criteria and standards should be done to measure their value. · Adaptable. At this time, the City's code is "one size fits all." It could be more ftexible and adapt- able on a project-by-project basis. Establishing flexible and adaptable tools would allow City staff to better respond to challenges and issues that come up during thc development process. · Enabling. Entrust staff to carry out policies and objectives by utilizing professional expertise. Empower staff to usc creative problem-solving to achieve set policies and goals. Provide thc framework for bounded delegation. Allow staff to make practical, rational decisions on common sense matters. Common-sense requests by applicants often require exception processes and may be burdensome. · Logical. There should be a discemible path from the standards and criteria to the objective the City is trying to achieve. Make it make sense. Every time amendments to the code are proposed it should be asked 'What issue is the City trying to address, what problem is it trying to solve.'?' · Strategic. Having a code that is less detail-oriented and more form-based with adjustable proc- esses that allow more responsiveness to staff, developers, and neighbors about how to achieve goals and policies can allow staff to be more open to negotiations and hands-on problem-solving. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 1 Work Session · Fair. The code must recognize there will be a variety of different stakeholder needs that must be met. Negotiations, compromise, balance, and consensus-building must be incorporated into a code revision process and ongoing code applications in order for the code to embody the diverse values of our community. · Additionally, the code should be reviewed on an annual basis. Mr. Coyle noted that Planning Division Director Susan Muir and Principle Planner Steve Nystrom were also present for the item. He commended the work they had done in bringing the item to the council. Mr. Coyle invited questions. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly expressed confusion about the nature of the item, noting the AIS referred in several places to the work task regarding minor amendments to the code adopted as part of the Planning Division's high- priority work program. However, the staff-proposed motion, which was to direct the City Manager to proceed with a process to revise and simplify Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code using the guiding principles referred to in the report accepted by the City Council on April 9, 2004, seemed much broader than that. It seemed to direct staff to go through the entire Chapter 9 of the code. Mr. Coyle indicated the minor amendments would include a review of all of Chapter 9. Mr. Nystrom anticipated that the code review would occur in two phases: 1) minor fixes to the code, which encompassed a review of the entire chapter, and 2) a more strategic examination of focus areas. He noted that the first phase was underway. Ms. Muir added that both phases fell within the scope of the high-priority work item adopted by the City Council. Mr. Kelly suggested the result could be changes to every page of the code. Ms. Muir clarified that staff was not doing a full audit; where it identified problems with the code it was proposing to address them. Mr. Kelly said he needed to see a more finely tuned motion. Mr. Pap6 arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly interpreted the committee's recommended guiding principles as economic principles. He said missing from the AlS were the planning principles that would be used in the code review. He asked staff to bring the council a set of planning principles to guide the review. Mr. Coyle indicated that could be done. He noted that the committee had sought input from the Planning Division staff as it developed the principles, and staff believed the principles were consistent with a planning perspective. Mr. Kelly preferred to take no action on the item at this time so staff could prepare a list of planning principles to serve as a further framework for the code review. He suggested that the principles be reviewed by the Planning Commission, as it was his impression from a discussion with a member of the commission that such a review had not occurred. Ms. Muir clarified that the principles were reviewed by the Planning Commission when it had a global discussion of how it would proceed with the code review. She said the commissioner in question may not have understood the source of the principles. Mr. Meisner agreed that further information about the intent of the motion would be useful. Mr. Meisner was unconcerned about the distinction between planning principles and the principles before the council, which appeared to be more focused on how the code actually worked in practice. He recalled the 1996 initiation of the Zoning Code Review, and said the principles under consideration were not MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 2 Work Session inconsistent with the framework for that process. He did not want to undertake a new code review, but did want the code to work more efficiently for homeowners, developers, "do-it-yourselfers," and staff. Mr. Meisner said the last principle, which called for an annual review, was a huge undertaking; the initial review had been anticipated to last two years, and he believed that was wildly optimistic. He hoped that staff compiled a list of code problems to address as staff and commission resources became available. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Muir for comment on the last principle. Ms. Muir said staff and the commission believed the code should be adaptable and staff should be able to address new issues as they arise. The commission discussed amending the code more often on regular basis, such as through a consent calendar. She assured Mr. Meisner that staff was keeping an electronic data base of problems, which was driving the current amendments process. Mr. Meisner liked the idea of a continuous code review, but continued to question whether staff had adequate resources to accomplish it. Ms. Muir believed so, and said if an item could not be addressed quickly it could be moved to the back of the line. Ms. Bettman asked for a definition of"bounded delegation." Mr. Coyle defined the term as establishing the parameters of the framework in which decisions would be made. Decisions would be delegated, but any decision must be made ethically within the parameters and intent of the law. Ms. Bettman suggested a legal definition be created so that the council knew the parameters between administrative decisions and those decisions having policy implications. Referring to the first principle, Ms. Bettman asked against what values the criteria would be measured. Mr. Coyle suggested the underlying goal of provision in question would be examined, and to determine that staff would return to the code purpose statement. Ms. Bettman said that created a problem for her, because in many cases the entire purpose and intent of the code provision was not included in the beginning of the applicable section, but addressed in the provisions below it. She interpreted the motion as direction to staff revise the Chapter 9 comprehensively as had been done ten years earlier. At that time, hundreds of citizens participated and input from local community organizations was received. She believed staff was requesting maximum discretion from the council for staff to change what the commu- nity put in place without community input. Ms. Bettman did not think the staff-suggested motion reflected what staff had stated was its intent. She wanted to see a specific list of what would be examined, with the parameters for the review. Ms. Bettman said the City was sued over the revised Land Use Code by the Lane County Home Builders Association and Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce because the code lacked clear and objective standards. Subsequently, the City removed all those provisions not considered clear and objective, and now staff was proposing to remove the remaining clear and objective standards and replace them with something intuitive and flexible. She concluded that staff appeared to be aiming for no regulation at all. Ms. Nathanson did not interpret the motion in the same way as Mr. Kelly. She said the council already knew it wanted to make more revisions to the code and had tied that to the work of the committee. She had not interpreted the guiding principles as economic development principles. They seemed like common sense process principles that guided any planning process, be it land use or transportation. Ms. Nathanson interpreted Mr. Coyle's remarks as stating that staff would follow the planning principles already laid out in the code and the guiding principles would be used to address areas where there were conflicts or gaps. She thought they were as much about procedure as the rules, and did not interpret them as an attempt to subvert the rules. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Nathanson suggested that rather than state the code would be reviewed annually, the last principle should read "Code revisions should be reviewed and processed at least annually." She hoped the code review would include some of the issues that had been brought up in neighborhood association meetings, such as fences. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the recommended principles were intended to improve the process and were an attempt to address constituent requests to make the code more reasonable and flexible. She thought the code was revised with the best of intentions but mistakes had been made. Ms. Solomon said it was okay to make mistakes and okay to fix them, and she thought the guiding principles were a good way to start. She supported the staff-proposed motion. She said that the discussion had begun to feel like council micromanagement to her, and she did not want to take that approach. Mr. Pap6 believed the committee's focus was on both code content and process. He recalled the council's recent discussion with the Planning Commission about an alternate track approach to regulation. Mr. Pap6 encouraged staff to review the work on that issue done by other jurisdictions and to avoid reinvent- ing the wheel. Mr. Pap6 believed the City's growth management principles would guide the review, and further pointed out the council would have to approve any eventual code revisions. Mr. Pap6 asked about the potential of establishing a one-day permitting process. Mr. Poling said the recommended principles did not appear to change the intent of the code but were intended to make the process customer-friendly and flexible. While he had no problem with the staff- proposed motion, he acknowledged that it might require amendment to win more council support. As to the proposed annual review, Mr. Poling suggested that a "bucket file" approach be used so that amend- ments could be addressed as they arise. He thought the principles allowed Planning Division staff to use their brains to work to solve problems while staying within the law and planning precepts. He encouraged the council to allow that to happen. Mr. Poling said another example of a problem with the code was the issue of"doggy day care," a use which fit nowhere in the code. He also cited as an example of a problem a small bank with a single drive- up window that had been assessed the systems development charges a much larger bank would pay. Referring to a statement in the AIS, Ms. Taylor recalled that the council accepted the report of the committee, but it did not adopt it. She said accepting the report was a matter of good manners. It did not mean the council would implement the report's recommendations. The reference meant nothing. She said it was yet another example of how staff misinterpreted the council's actions to argue the council supported something it did not. Ms. Taylor thought the guiding principles employed good words but they could be interpreted to mean anything. She said the council just completed the code update, and if there were things that needed to be changed, staff should return to the council with a list of them and the reasons they were a problem. She agreed that if the staff-proposed motion were adopted, the result could be no standards at all. She was disturbed by what might be allowed if the motion passed. Mayor Torrey did not think staff was proposing something that the council taking its seat in January 2005 would not accept. He said the more the City could make its codes practical and understandable to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 4 Work Session public, the better off all would be. He said terminology understood only by professionals and activists turned people off. Mayor Torrey believed that eventually, the two local hospitals would relocate between communities, compelling clinics to also relocate. Constituents had expressed to him a concern that clinics were not an allowed use on light industrially zoned land and fear that the council would not amend the code to allow clinics on such zoning. He asked if the council wanted doctors to move to Springfield, farther away from Eugene citizens, or if it wanted to find a way to accommodate that need mid-point between hospital locations. Mayor Torrey agreed with those who maintained the issue was how to make the code workable. He did not think the committee was recommending the code be discarded, but rather that it be made more adaptable to the community's needs. He did not think the new mayor and council would allow Eugene to be poorly planned. He supported the staff-proposed motion but did not object to amendments clarifying its intent. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. Mr. Kelly believed the proposed principles had a relationship to the alternate path. He was worried the council was contemplating broad changes to the prescriptive code while waiting to see an alternate path proposal. He attributed the amount of discussion to confusion among councilors as to the intent of the motion.. He did not think the council had time to resolve the issue without division. Mr. Kelly questioned why a motion was needed given that the council had adopted a Planning Division work program identifying the minor plan amendments as a high priority work task and the fact the council had regularly taken action on minor amendments in the past to address minor mistakes. He suggested staff take the "gestalt" of the discussion and move forward with formal action from the council. In response to Mr. Kelly, City Manager Taylor said motion provided an expectation that the City would do just what Mr. Kelly was suggesting and reflected the committee's recommendation. Mr. Kelly reiterated that the motion was not needed. He believed staff could go forward and do what the principles stated without further dividing the council. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly that councilors interpreted the motion differently, and she believed the proposal needed to be returned to staff for more specificity before the council considered it again. She interpreted the motion as bypassing the council and placing decision-making power with the staff in regard to revising Chapter 9. She also wanted to see estimates about the cost of the approach, as she believed the flexibility and discretion being discussed would cost a lot. Regarding the mayor's issue about clinics and light-industrial land, Ms. Bettman pointed out that was a zoning issue rather than a code issue, and if it was a problem, staff should return to the council with recommendations about needed zone changes soon. Ms. Bettman observed that the council heard constituent complaints about unpredictability and lack of consistency in code application, and she questioned how giving staff so much discretion would result in more consistency and predictability. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the alternate path. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 5' Work Session Mr. Meisner said he refused to live in a paranoid world where staff could not be trusted. He thought the recommended principles were great, and did not interpret the motion as changing the process of amending City ordinances. Instead, the motion directed staff to consider the principles in developing needed code amendments, which under the law, must be adopted by the council through a public process. The motion did not delegate authority to the staff to amend the code. Mr. Coyle concurred. Mr. Meisner believed the City's code frustrated those projects the council wanted to encourage most. The most innovative developers were the ones who complained about a lack of ability to accomplish what they wished under the code. He hoped that at minimum, staff would develop a set of principles to guide the development of future code amendments. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner in regard to the council's authority. He said the amendments would come before the council for final approval. He believed the motion gave staff leeway to be more creative. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner and Mr. Pap6 in regard to the council's role. She said the discussion was another opportunity to surface what she believed was the growing tension about the council/manager form of government in Eugene. She interpreted the motion in the same way Mr. Meisner did. The motion was authorization to staff to develop ideas to bring back to the council. Ms. Nathanson pointed out the council often amended ordinances, sometimes after many public hearings, in an attempt to balance the interests of various concerns. Ms. Nathanson thought the staff-proposed motion was appropriate. She said the extreme approach was for the council itself to approve every development application. She thought that would be very unfortunate as it would not be efficient or fair. The process would become politicized, and decisions would not be based on sound planning principles. Ms. Bettman said Ms. Nathanson's comments regarding the council/manager form of government notwithstanding, Mr. Coyle had been clear from the onset of his employment with the City that he believed the best regulation was no regulation at all. Given that he directed the philosophy of the department, any discretion would be in the direction of less regulation. Ms. Bettman said without clear policy oversight, she found that troubling. Ms. Bettman indicated she would offer the staff-proposed motion to the body with an amendment directing the manager to return to the council with the proposed process. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to return to the council with a process to revise and simplify Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code using the named guiding principles referred to in the report accepted by the City Council on August 9, 2004. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He said he had questions about the principles he would send to all the councilors via e-mail, and when staff returned with the process, the council could better understand how they would be applied. Mr. Meisner indicated his intent to offer the staff-proposed motion to the body. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the motion by directing the City Manager to proceed with a process to revise and simplify Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 6 Work Session using the named guiding principles referred to in the report accepted by the City Council on August 9, 2004. Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the amendment to the motion. Ms. Bettman reiterated that councilors interpreted the motion differently and she wanted to see the process, timeline, and magnitude of the changes being considered before amendments to the code were proposed. Mr. Kelly was uncomfortable in accepting the staff-proposed motion because of the confusion it had caused. He reiterated his early comments about staff's ability to move forward with the minor code amendments. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the item to the council meeting of January 5, 2005. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Taylor indicated she could not support the amended motion because of the confusion about its intent. Mr. Kelly believed that if the council passed the staff-proposed motion, it would only increase the level of distrust between staff and the council. Ms. Bettman said it was likely the motion would pass on a narrow majority. She said the council was managing some very important issues, such as revising the Land Use Code and reconsideration of the transportation system maintenance fee, on expedited, 5:3 votes. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman vot- ing no. The motion as amended passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Pap6 was comfortable leaving the issue up to staff. He encouraged councilors wishing to learn more about the process to contact staff for more information. In response to Mr. Pap6's comment, Mr. Kelly said he "just tried." He had tried in the meeting to get a straight answer from staff about the scope of the code review, and he could not. He asked what planning principles would be applied; he could not get a straight answer. No one was telling him what he was asking. He questioned whether the council was going to govern in a vacuum, or if it was going to be able to talk together. He termed the process dysfunctional. Ms. Bettman said it was a functional process for a council majority but dysfunctional for the community. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's comment, she said she could certainly get a report on what the staff would do but would have no influence on the process. When she gave the City Manager feedback, it "pretty much falls on deaf ears." She had no influence on City processes except through a vote on the council. She said in her opinion, what Mr. Pap6 was proposing did not work. Mayor Torrey said that the comments made by Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly were a tremendous disservice to the administrators of the City. They paid attention to what each councilor said, and it was his opinion that the council president had a substantial influence on what happened in the City's administrative MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 7 Work Session offices. He said Ms. Bettman might not always get her way, but she was heard; being heard was not always the same as being agreed with. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Transportation Funding for Pavement Preservation City Manager Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council that it had been working for some time on a sustainable, locally controlled finance the backlog of pavement preservation projects. The council had explored many options and discussed the issue with the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Staff was now returning with more options. Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided some brief history on the item, noting the council last discussed the issue on September 27. He reminded the council of the work done on the topic of transportation financing by the Budget Citizen Subcommittee and its recommendation for a local gas tax and establishment of a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) to address the preservation backlog. The council subsequently adopted a local gas tax and a TSMF, but later repealed the TSMF because of concerns expressed by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and because the council wanted to discuss additional funding opportunities with the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Corey noted current sources generate about $3 million to $4 million annually in the face of an annual need of about $9 million. The maintenance backlog was approximately $90 million. Mr. Corey reminded the council that on September 27, it directed staff to return with a two-cent increase in the gas tax and an ordinance reinstituting the TSMF. Mr. Corey reviewed the attachments to the Agenda Item Summary: A) Proposed revisions to Ordinance No. 20278 (Concerning a Business License Tax on Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers); B) "An Ordinance Establishing Transportation System Maintenance Fees," staff memo dated October 18, 2004; C) Proposed ordinance establishing transportation system maintenance fees; D) excerpt from Citizen Subcommittee materials and report to council regarding the discussion and conclusions on the use of General Obligation bonds for transportation funding; and E) Bonding Alternatives for Pavement Preservation. The options before the council included: Option 1: Direct the City Manager to discontinue efforts for the adoption of ordinances for the purpose of generating additional pavement preservation funding; Option 2: Bring back for discussion a resolution to place a measure on the ballot authorizing the issuance of General Obligation bonds for the purpose of providing funding for pavement preservation projects; Option 3: Increase the Business License Tax on motor vehicle fuel dealers by an additional two cents, to the five-cent level, by moving forward with the proposed amendment to Ordi- nance No. 20278; Option 4: Establish transportation system maintenance fees by moving forward with the proposed ordinance; or Option 5: Direct the City Manager to do any combination or variation of these options. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Corey distributed a TSMF fact sheet and called attention to the example rates. He noted changes from the rates previously considered by the council and reminded the council the rates were set by administrative rule. Mr. Corey noted the City Manager's recommendation that the council pursue a two-cent gas tax increase and establish a TSMF, and that it decline to pursue bonding alternatives at this time. He indicated that if the council decided to proceed, a public hearing would be scheduled for November 22, 2004, and action would be scheduled for December 6. Mr. Corey acknowledged the contributions of City staff members Sue Cutsogeorge, Larry Hill, Patty Boyle, Fred McVey, Eric Jones, and Becky Koble in preparing the materials before the council. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue options 3 and 4 as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions regarding the motion. Mr. Poling asked staff to discuss administrative costs. Mr. Corey said that the primary administrative costs would include the costs of billing and internal service costs. He anticipated that those costs would be approximately $650,000 if done through the Eugene Water & Electric Board. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Corey that the ordinance would encompass off-street bicycle paths. Mr. Poling asked what it meant to exempt 80 percent of the diesel fuel from the tax, as Springfield had done, and if Eugene could do the same thing. Mr. Corey noted that Springfield's gas tax collects approximately three times more from diesel fuel users than Eugene's did. He said that he would not recommend taking that approach because several councilors had wanted to ensure that the impact of trucks on the street was addressed in some manner. Mr. Poling asked if there could be a revenue cap set for the TSMF. Mr. Corey said the City could cap the revenue and anticipated that could occur through the budget process. However, he pointed out that it was likely that the revenue would fluctuate from year to year in response to higher or lower than estimated receipts from other components, such as the gas tax. Mr. Poling indicated he would not oppose removing the provision of the TSMF ordinance related to funding for the bicycle system. He believed revenues should be restricted to the on-street bicycle system only. Mr. Corey said the concept behind the TSMF was not that it was generated by the curb-to-curb network uses; the concept was that all in the community benefited from the network and that all paid, even if they were not direct users. He thought the language in the section was developed by the council during an earlier work session. Ms. Taylor stated that someone with five cars would pay the same TSMF as someone without a car. She said she had asked staffwhy the council was considering the TSMF again and what had changed since its repeal, and learned that nothing had changed other than that the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce dropped its opposition. She would have preferred to hear more about support from other community organizations, such as the neighborhood associations and the City Club. Ms. Taylor found it extremely disturbing the chamber had so much influence on City actions, although she acknowledged she had not been bothered by the chamber's influence when the council repealed the ordinance because she did not MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 9 Work Session support the TSMF. She said the council should be looking for another revenue source. Ms. Taylor would only approve a motion to refer the issue to the voters. In response to Ms. Taylor's comments, Mr. Corey clarified that in his response to her e-mail question, he pointed out a council majority adopted the initial ordinance and then a council majority repealed the ordinance primarily, not exclusively, because of concerns expressed by the chamber. He said he would not characterize the chamber as now supporting the ordinance because he did not know if it did. Mr. Kelly supported taking the gas tax increase to a public hearing. Speaking to the issue of the TSMF, he said the rates associated with the fee were crucial to the discussion. He had defended the previous TSMF ordinance on the basis the rates were based on science. Now the newly proposed TSMF raised two-thirds the amount the former TSMF had been projected to raise. The rate charged to a single-family house had not changed, but the rates charged to commercial users, such as Wal-Mart, had dropped dramatically. Mr. Kelly said for that reason, he could not support the ordinance. He said the change seemed like a conscious tax shift from businesses to individuals, and he could not support that. Mr. Kelly indicated he would consider the ordinance if the rates were revised. Ms. Nathanson appreciated the completeness of the meeting packet materials and presentation. However, she was disappointed by the lack of information about what occurred between the repeal and reconsidera- tion of the TSMF. She noted community opposition and Springfield's decision not to proceed with a TSMF, which had influenced her decision to support the repeal of the fee. She said chamber members she spoke with indicated support of the TSMF with a different rate structure. Ms. Nathanson asked what had happened, as she thought there was to a good faith effort between the concerned parties to change the way the fee was received by the public. In response, Mr. Corey said there was an effort by the chamber, Lane County, the City, and many others to talk about transportation funding alternatives. He characterized the results as a bit disappointing since no new revenue ideas had come forward and other ideas were not pursued, although Lane County had agreed to transfer its component of the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) 3 moneys to the cities. Ms. Bettman noted her continued opposition to the use of STP-U funds on the Friendly Street Bicycle Project and said such projects were demonstrative of why she could not support a TSMF or gas tax devoted to maintenance and preservation. As long as the City allocated funding that could be used for preservation on new projects, she would oppose such taxes. The project in question was mostly signage and striping. In response, Mr. Corey explained the funding discrepancies Ms. Bettman raised regarding the Friendly Street project. Ms. Bettman noted that the charts provided to the council regarding the gas tax were not comparable as one was based on a four-cent tax and one was based on a five-cent tax. Ms. Bettman said when the council repealed the TSMF it was because of the chamber's threat to send it to the ballot. That gave the chamber the exclusive ability to negotiate lower rates for big business at the expense of everyone else in the community. Ms. Bettman thought the timeline being proposed was not sufficient to inform the public as it did not take into consideration the upcoming holidays. Mr. Meisner indicated he would move to divide the question. He supported the two-cent gas tax increase and was also interested in exploring the exemption of diesel fuels. He did not support the TSMF at this point in time, and had grave concerns about it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Nathanson's interest in an analysis of what happened since the repeal. He said he was unsure he would characterize the discussions with Lane County and the chamber as happening in good faith; the previous evening he had received an e-mail from Commissioner Peter Sorenson expressing hope that Eugene would devote some lobbying efforts to the reauthorization of the County forest payments legislation. He had responded that Eugene would be more likely to lobby for that when incorporated cities were treated as part of Lane County in regard to the use of those funds. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to divide the question. The motion to divide passed unanimously, 8:0. The motion on the floor was as follows: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue Option 3 as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary. Mr. Pap6 acknowledged the work done by staff and shared his disappointment that the County had not been forthcoming with its Road Fund dollars. While he appreciated the OTIA money, he would have let the County keep it if the County shared the Road Fund dollars with Lane County cities for use on maintenance and preservation. Mr. Pap6 was disappointed at the County's opposition and lack of creativity in moving a solution to the problem of transportation funding forward. Speaking to the issue of bonding, which would be paid for by property owners rather than all users of the transportation system, Mr. Papb questioned whether any option covered all users. He suggested that the TSMF was similar in that sense. Mr. Corey disagreed, and suggested the council discuss the issue later. Ms. Solomon supported the TSMF and said the fee was a fair one. It applied to all who benefited from the road. She said it was also a long-range solution to the issue of transportation funding that had been implemented in at least nine other Oregon communities. If the council established the ordinance it would not have to revisit the issue because it would have set the revenue target and established the revenue sources. Ms. Solomon said roads benefit all citizens and the council had a role in stewarding the City's investment. She suggested that if the council did not support the TSMF, it should bump the proposed gas tax increase to seven cents. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion related to Option 3 by putting the gas tax increase on the ballot at the earliest available opportunity. The amend- ment to the motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by increasing the gas tax increase to four cents. Mr. Kelly appreciated Ms. Solomon's motion but did not think a four-cent increase would be sufficient. He suggested a six-cent increase would be more appropriate. Ms. Nathanson pointed out-that the amount of any gas tax increase could be changed after the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Solomon withdrew her amendment. Mr. Kelly withdrew his second. Mr. Meisner accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Bettman to delete any references to the amount of gas tax as indirectly reflected in the AIS. City Manager Taylor indicated staff would return with a range of options. The motion regarding Option 3 passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the motion regarding Option 4. The motion on the floor was as follows: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue Option 4 as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary. Ms. Taylor did not think the council should rush on this issue. She suggested the rush was due to the fact a new council would be seated in January 2005. The people who were just elected would not have a chance to participate in the decision. Mayor Torrey called for a vote on the motion. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting yes. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 12 Work Session