Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 10/27/04 WS 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. 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 the work session was another on the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. The focus of the work session was on Chapter 9 of the Eugene Land Use Code. Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle noted the recommendation before the council was the third of four recommendations forwarded by the committee. The recommendation regarded the predictability of outcomes associated with permitting. The committee discussed some principles to guide the City's review of the Land Use Code. Mr. Coyle called the council's attention to the seven principles that the committee wanted to see applied as the City went through its next code update, described in the council's Agenda Item Summary (ALS) as follows: · Intuitive. Staff and the public find the code difficult and confusing, and it is likely more complex than it needs to be 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 %ne size fits all." It could be more flexible 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 the development process. · Enabling. Entrust staff to carry out policies and objectives by utilizing professional expertise. Empower staff to use creative problem-solving to achieve set policies and goals. Provide the 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 discernible 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 processes 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. · Fair. The code must recognize there will be a variety of different stakeholder needs that must be MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 1 Work Session 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. Pap~ 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 %ounded 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 community put in place without a comparable process for 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 they claimed 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. Pap~ 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. Pap~ encouraged staff to review the work on that issue done by other jurisdictions and to avoid reinventing the wheel. Mr. Pap~ 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. Pap~ 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 amendments 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 before there was a chance 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 without 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 us- MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 6 Work Session ing 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 voting no. The motion as amended passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Pap~ 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. Papa'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. Papa'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. Pap~ 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 offices. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 7 Work Session 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 effbrts 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 staff why 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 support the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 9 Work Session 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 reconsideration 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 10 Work Session 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. 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. Pap6 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the amount of any gas tax increase could be changed after the public hearing. 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 AlS. 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