Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: August 13, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the June 20, 2007, Work Session, June 25, 2007, City Council Meeting, June 27, 2007, Work Session, and July 11, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.June 20, 2007, Work Session B.June 25, 2007, City Council Meeting C.June 27, 2007, Work Session D.July 11, 2007, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070813\S0708132A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Shop Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library Eugene, Oregon June 20, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. WORK SHOP: City Council Goal – City Hall Complex The council was joined for the item by Thomas Hacker, Jonah Cohen, and Dana Ing Crawford of Thomas Hacker Architects, Ellen Teninty of T’N T Consultants, Galen Ohmart of Solarc, Doug Macy and Ken Pirie of Walker Macy, Dave Wilson and Rick Rehfeldt of McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie, and Kyle Brown of J. D. White Company. Police Chief Robert Lehner, and Glen Svendsen and Mike Penwell of the Facility Management Division were also present. Mr. Cohen reviewed the agenda. Ms. Teninty shared the results of the public involvement effort, highlighting the consultant’s focus on empirical public research and expanding the pool of people to be involved in the next round of public conversation. The consultants had gone to places where people go, such as fairs, festivals, movies, parks, sporting events, and shopping venues. She said another focus was on involving youth and Latinos. Because input from those groups indicated a need for education about how government worked and how to become involved, leadership training was planned for those populations at the locations the forum occurred. A ward map would be made available at the leadership training along with contact information about the City, the City Council, and neighborhood organizations. Materials were being translated into Spanish and made culture-appropriate. She noted an example of that material. Ms. Teninty reported that people indicated to the consultants that they were finding information about civic affairs in their organizational newsletters, and the consultant was making contacts with additional newsletter editors to expand outreach in that area. Ms. Teninty noted Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary, the public activities update. Mr. Pack provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the empirical research that had been done and acknowledged the contribution of California consultant Heidi von Szeiliski, who had considerable expertise in Oregon surveys. Copies of the presentation were provided to the council. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the methodology and the responses. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 1 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Mr. Cohen reminded the council of some recent events and new information that could inform its discussion, such as the demise of the Whole Foods project and the fact the parking lot adjacent to the site owned by the City was still available; the owner of the site of Rock ‘N Rodeo had indicated she had no interest in selling the site to the City; there was a difference of opinion about the effect of the deed restrictions for the County- owned butterfly parking lot; and the General Services Administration (GSA) had expressed interest in City occupation of part of the old federal building through a long-term lease. He recommended the council reconsider its original plans in response to those changes in reality and in response to the public input. Mr. Hacker presented consolidation strategies depicted on both the existing City Hall site and the site of the butterfly parking lot/Rock ‘N Rodeo. The consolidation options moved from the most consolidated (the “A” strategies) to least consolidated (the “D” strategy) and each degree of consolidation was depicted on both sites. All assumed the patrol function was not included. An estimated cost was shown for each strategy. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the impetus for looking at options to decrease the cost, but questioned at what point the consultants were directed to sacrifice consolidation of services, which was a major value expressed by the council and those surveyed. Mr. Hacker said the consultants heard from the polling that if the bond measure was above a certain dollar amount it was unlikely to pass and were seeking to reduce costs. Ms. Bettman asked if losing consolidation was the only way to decrease costs. Mr. Hacker said that consolida- tion and reuse of space were both good ways to reduce costs, and the consultant was trying to depict what it would take to reach the number favored by the public. Ms. Teninty recalled that the council had spoken of consolidating to the greatest extent possible. There were other ways of lowering costs, and acknowledged the design could hit a point where it would not win support because it was not sufficiently consolidated. She said the council would get to that discussion. Mr. Poling asked if the strategies that included the federal building included the costs of the lease. Mr. Cohen said no. Mr. Poling asked why the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site were still under discussion if they were not viable. Mr. Cohen said that the most recent direction the council had given the consultant team had been to plan for the site. The other strategies were intended to stimulate discussion. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that consolidation of City services was a very high value for him and he would prefer not to sacrifice it. Ms. Taylor also questioned why the City Council was still discussing the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site when they were not available. Mayor Piercy deferred further discussion of that issue until after the presentation. Mr. Cohen reviewed a matrix that summarized potential costs for each strategy. He emphasized the escalation in construction costs that were occurring, which had increased the project costs. Mr. Cohen reviewed a project time line that assumed a bond measure would be presented to the voters in a general election in 2008. He indicated the consultant’s work would have to be done by May in time for a campaign committee to be formed. The council took a brief meeting break. Ms. Ortiz said she was not surprised by the results of the survey, which she believed reflected the polariza- tion on the council. She was concerned to see the escalation of costs for the patrol building as she favored moving forward with that project sooner rather than later. She clarified with Mr. Cohen that the building would be an essential services structure. Ms. Ing said all police functions were assumed to be required MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 2 Work Shop—City Hall Goal essential service facilities, including the office of the chief, the detectives, and patrol, and all must remain operational in an earthquake. Ms. Ortiz did not know why the patrol building alone would total $25 million. Mr. Cohen emphasized the conservative nature of the estimates and said that much of the increase had to do with construction cost escalation. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the continuing outreach being done by the consultant and asked if they were tracking numbers. Ms. Teninity said the team did not track numbers but frequently people did not want to provide contact information. Mayor Piercy thought it would be useful to have those numbers. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Pack how he compensated for how hard it was to survey voters when there were so many people who now use cell phones. Mr. Pack responded that the field of polling was changing; it was taking longer and costing more to complete a survey. Cell phones did make it difficult to reach younger voters in particular, as they frequently had no land line and moved often. Mayor Piercy suggested an important component of the eco-charette was education about the short-term versus the life cycle costs. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pack said that telephone surveyors did call people back when appropriate. Ms. Taylor was skeptical about telephone surveys. Ms. Taylor asked if the consultant team was excluding those who were generally involved in local government issues. Ms. Teninty said no; in the next phase, she anticipated involvement from those traditionally involved. Ms. Taylor thought the activists would determine what happened next. Ms. Taylor asked whether the police chief would still remain in City Hall if a separate police facility was constructed. Mr. Cohen said yes. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the space available in the federal building, Mr. Penwell said the GSA indicated that currently, it appeared that 16,000 to 23,000 square feet might be available, depending on what agencies moved in and out. He said it was possible the City could secure an ownership share in the facility. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Penwell said the GSA indicated it wanted to retain ownership of the building for 10 to 15 years and was not willing to turn over more space. He indicated that could change with changes in leadership, and staff would keep asking the question about a possible ownership share. Mr. Poling agreed the survey information was not surprising. He referred to Ms. Ortiz’s remarks regarding relocating the patrol function, and suggested that the council place that a step ahead because his understand- ing of the seismic restrictions were that where ever they were relocated must be no worse than existing conditions. Mr. Penwell said the Building Official indicated initially the building must meet full require- ments because there was no temporary provision in the code, but finally agreed that as long as a project was underway the function could move to another building no worse than City Hall. Mr. Poling referred to leasing the federal building and asked for a comparison of the costs of placing Municipal Court there as opposed to retaining it in City Hall. Mr. Poling said he would place a motion on the floor at a July council meeting to take the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo off the table as sites for a new city hall. Central Services Director Jim Carlson did not think the two sites in question were completely off the table. The deed restriction affected only a part of the property, and it was still possible to acquire the Rock ‘N Rodeo property. Mr. Poling indicated unwillingness to do so through eminent domain. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 3 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Mr. Clark suggested that the City consider acquiring the Eugene Water & Electric Board Administration (EWEB) building as part of a new city hall complex. He thought it might be less expensive and could save EWEB costs in relocating in the long run. Mr. Cohen said the building in question was smaller than the existing City Hall, leaving the issue of finding more space unresolved. He recalled that the site was examined in the site selection process, and there was stronger support for other sites because of their proximity to downtown. Mr. Clark recalled there were 75-80 people at the public forum on site selection and agreed that the site was not highly rated by that group, but he thought that had been part of a larger discussion in which some expressed their belief it was a higher value for a new city hall to be part of a reinvigorated Parks Block downtown, while the survey indicated less support for that. Mr. Zelenka commended the information presented and suggested it had “shifted the floor” for him. It appeared from the survey that a bond would be difficult but doable. He said the survey results made the Facilities Fund and its continued growth even more important. Safety, sustainability, and parking seemed to be important to respondents. Consolidation was also considered important, although Mr. Zelenka would have liked to have seen a follow-up question that asked respondents about their support for consolidation if it cost more. He suggested that the council needed to pay attention to the other high priorities, such as pavement preservation, identified by the public. Mr. Zelenka was less concerned about the consolidation issue than some might be. He said the C-2 strategy made sense to him. He acknowledged the difficulties associated with the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site. He referred to A-2 and noted the high cost per square foot associated with each structure and questioned the 30 percent premium associated with the patrol building. Mr. Cohen said that part of the response to the cost per square foot question had to do with scale. There was also parking associated with the patrol function. He said the consultant team discussed the issue extensively with the estimator looking at recently bid projects. However, the consultant team did not yet know if the new city hall building was a free-standing building downtown with a symbolic presence or was a facility located elsewhere that could be built more cheaply. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the survey demonstrated that the more the City informed people, the better the chances of having a measure to support a new city hall passed. The survey also indicated that some of the issues the council thought would resonate with voters did not, while others did, and he thought that gave the council a place to focus its attention to build public support. Ms. Bettman disliked the idea of spending $2.5 million in public money and returning to square one; that is, having services spread around the city and a separate police station. She also was not surprised by the survey results, particularly given the assumptions that informed the questions. She asked if the three failed bond measures for a police facility had been mentioned in the survey and if it had played into people’s opinions of what they could support in regard to expending money on a patrol facility before a new city hall. She believed the project was beginning to unravel in terms of what was supportable. She said that removing the option of consolidation eliminated the values of striving for simplicity and efficiency. She said the consolidation was intended to save money and unify public services. Ms. Bettman said she wished the survey would have included a question about where people got their information, because she thought the priorities reflected in the survey reflected the reporting in the media related to the high profile placed on road projects, for example. Ms. Bettman said she was not “married” to the Rock ‘N Rodeo site. She thought it should have been made clear to the public that there was a cost involved in building on the existing City Hall site. The public should have been asked if it wanted to build on that site if it would cost $2.5 million more and the City MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 4 Work Shop—City Hall Goal would face “unmanageable and uncontrollable” expenses due to the need to relocate employees and move them back to the site. She questioned the results of the survey because people did not have that information. Ms. Bettman said the survey results for the ballot measure were also not surprising and they confirmed her long-held belief that political support for whatever was placed on the ballot was a key to the measure’s passage. Whatever product the council put forward needed to have more than a slim majority of councilors in support, and she was not on board. She thought the proposal “DOA” at this point. She did not support going forward with a police facility first as she thought it looked like the council was being manipulated into doing what the voters had rejected three times. Disbursing services took away a major motivation for going forward. The site was less important to her than those factors. Mayor Piercy said that even if the council could make the case the Rock ‘N Rodeo site was viable, the legal issues could be lengthy to overcome and could generate a community debate that could take away from support. She said the council had agreed to take the patrol facility out of the main city hall. She thought EWEB had been clear that it wanted to retain the administrative offices on its site. Mayor Piercy asked how important it was to keep the court in the consolidated city hall. City Manager Taylor said that it was a destination point for citizens. The opportunity to use facilities already designed for that use was attractive to him. Mr. Carlson said the court was an independent function, with a relationship to the prosecutor’s office and police investigative function. Reusing the existing City Hall site in conjunc- tion with the federal building essentially established two campuses on adjacent sites. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work of the consultant team. He said the information was consistent with the last survey, which showed support for the work the City did; the numbers began to go down when the subject changed to leadership and governance. He suggested that was more than one point of view versus the other point of view; two-thirds of the public, for example, fault the council for its manage- ment of growth and tax dollars. The survey demonstrated a lack of confidence that the City’s leadership was managing its job as well as it could, which led to the question: Would someone want to give the City money if they lacked confidence in the council? He thought they would, if they thought the City’s priorities were well-placed, and residents got to set the City’s priorities because it was their money. He thought a major public information campaign could occur to boost support but the City could still lose the election. He was concerned the City did not have the voters’ confidence. Mr. Pryor supported the existing City Hall site and thought from the public’s point of view it was the common sense site. He wanted to build a 50- to 100- year building and not get caught up in trying to build the cheapest building possible to get by, because those were the mistakes made in the past that come home later. He said the council needed to figure out how to build such a building on whatever site was selected because he thought the City would only get one shot at a new city hall for a long time. Speaking to the costs of relocation, Mr. Pryor agreed there was a cost to relocating staff, but a greater cost to buying a new site. Mr. Pryor did not consider the survey a “green light” or a “red light,” but he thought it indicated a new city hall would be a very tough sell to the public. The council would have to put enormous effort into the issue to overcome what appeared to be structural obstacles to the project as well as to the interconnection with other projects and the trust and faith the community had in the council. That was a huge challenge, and he did not want to waste anyone’s time unless the council truly believed the project could go forward. He said the council had many priorities and he wanted to be sure they were in the right order. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 5 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Ms. Solomon supported removing the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site from further considera- tion and said the A-2 Option was her preference. However, she was intrigued by the idea of moving the courts into the federal building. She had been somewhat surprised at the polling data as she had not thought things were “that bad.” She agreed with Mr. Pryor that the council had its work cut out for it but she continued to think the project was important. Mr. Zelenka did not think the project was unraveling; however, he thought the survey should have been done earlier in the process. He thought the public was telling the council that the price tag for a big consolidated city hall was too high, and the council needed to get down under a $100 million bond. The council needed to look at other options, such as the C options. The only way to reduce the cost was to reduce the size of the project. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need to build a building that would last for the long term and he emphasized the importance of the building being sustainable. Mr. Zelenka emphasized the importance assigned to the two top sites, including the existing site, by the public forum participants. They were ranked high above the sites below them. The public forum had been a well-balanced cross-section of the community, and he trusted their judgment. He was prepared to let go of th the Rock ‘N Rodeo and butterfly parking lot. He suggested that the sale of the lot on the other side of 8 Avenue could help with some of the moving costs. Speaking to the timing of the bond issue, Mr. Zelenka expressed concern about a bond measure that might compete with a transportation financing measure. He also did not think that gave the council enough time to build trust with voters that Mr. Pryor mentioned. He believed that the council should be able to show progress in downtown and progress in the other high priority issues identified by voters before going to the public with a bond measure. He was not in favor of moving forward with a separate police facility. He was also not in favor of having the police facility inside city hall, and needed more information about why it was so expensive. Ms. Bettman cautioned the council against reading too much into the survey responses related to growth and development, for example, as that could be any split between people who thought the council spent too much subsidizing it and those who thought the council needed to do more to encourage it. Overall, people were unhappy and she was sure they were unhappy for different reasons. Ms. Bettman again emphasized her interest in the consolidated options. She said the community did not understand the distinctions between different levels of governments and she feared that relocating Municipal Court to the federal building would further confuse the public. It would be different if the entire building was available for a new city hall, as many people were interested in that, but it made no sense to her to rent space at the federal building. Speaking to the issue of the EWEB site, Ms. Bettman thought it would cost too much to create the transportation link between that site and downtown as it was not really downtown. She suggested that the council agree that the issue was not “ripe” and take the $30 million to buy the EWEB site or at minimum, the riparian area. Regarding options for cost-cutting, Ms. Bettman suggested the council could use urban renewal money for the city hall facility as well as any other money being funneled into the KWG project without the need to jeopardize the functional elements. Mr. Carlson noted that the existing City Hall site was not in the urban renewal district. Ms. Solomon noted Mr. Zelenka’s remarks about the 2008 election, and said the council’s transportation subcommittee also discussed putting a measure on the May 2008 ballot. However, she thought his points were well taken and agreed it might be difficult going to the voters again in such a narrow window. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 6 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Ms. Solomon asked if the consolidation cost options include the money the City would realize for selling the Atrium. Mr. Carlson said that the financing plan included the resources from the sale of properties, although that was somewhat speculative at this time as the City did not count its assets until it sold them. It was not the only asset the City could sell as the City could also sell the facility at 858 Pearl Street. Ms. Solomon suggested that the City sell the Atrium as it would have to invest in it to make it a more usable building. Mr. Carlson said the City also owed money on the Atrium; possibly as much as its worth. City Manager Taylor noted the council was tentatively scheduled to talk about upcoming elections in October. He also noted that the boards of directors of 4J School District and Lane Community College (LCC) were also talking about capital bond measures in November 2008. He said that LCC was talking about a bond measure of about $100 million and the school district was contemplating a bond of about $116 million. Mr. Pack agreed that the council needed to consider competing bond measures and be thoughtful in coordinating things were they could with the other jurisdictions to keep informed. However, he said there was a different electorate involved in 2008 than would be participating in 2010, which was a presidential election year and would bring out many different interest groups. That would impact the level of support for a bond measure. He said that the council also needed to consider whether it would lose voters through the nature of the election it was considering. City Manager Taylor said another issue to consider was cost escalation; the numbers had jumped already and the council needed to factor in additional costs as it did not appear the escalation would abate between now and 2010. Ms. Bettman said there would always be competing money measures on the ballot. However, she thought the process had created a certain momentum that would be lost if the council delayed too long, as well its investment in the process. She thought the biggest factor for success was having a good project with broad support among the councilors. Ms. Ortiz wanted to move ahead with a police building sooner than later. Her goal was not a building with all the “bells and whistles,” but rather for the police to be removed from their current unsatisfactory quarters. She suggested the City could build a no-frills building on property it already owned. She thought that would send a message of support to the police officers as she thought their current working conditions had an impact on how they felt about their work. She had hoped to see a modest proposal for such a building that could be accomplished for less than $5 to $10 million. Ms. Ortiz had envisioned that the chief, detectives, Internal Affairs, etc. would remain in City Hall. Ms. Ing reported that the design Ms. Ortiz mentioned was included in the strategies. Ms. Bettman said after the second bond measure failed staff had created a sense of urgency about the conditions in which the police were working in the basement of City Hall and the City Council had allocated $6 million to solve relocate the police to a facility at the Roosevelt facility. There were not supposed to be any patrol officers in the basement of City Hall. Ms. Ortiz observed that the patrol function was not at the Roosevelt facility. Mr. Carlson clarified that in 2000, there was permanent staff in the basement of City Hall responsible for Property Control and the Forensics Laboratory. A building was constructed on the Roosevelt site to house Property Control and the Forensics Laboratory. All permanent staff were taken from the basement and housed in the new building. He said Ms. Ortiz was correct in that the basement of City Hall was still the location of patrol locker rooms and the place where patrol went each day to report in and receive briefings. There was no permanent staff in offices in the basement. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 7 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Ms. Ortiz said the fact the voters rejected proposals for a new police facility in the past signified to her that they did not want to pay for it. She thought the council should pay for the facility from the existing budget. She did not think that moving forward with such a facility would be going against what the voters wanted. Ms. Teninty asked if any councilor was unwilling to give up the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site. Ms. Bettman said she was not unwilling to give up the two sites but her concern was that she did not want the existing City Hall site to be the only option. She suggested if the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo site had been approached with the same type of “value-added” approach other downtown property owners had been, her response might have been different. Referring to the deed restrictions on the butterfly lot, she recalled the recent court decision involving the deed restrictions for Civic Stadium, which had not worked out to the City’s advantage, which she attributed to the City’s legal representation rather than the deed restrictions. She thought if councilors were really interested in the butterfly lot, they would seek to lift the deed restrictions. She thought “bailing” on the sites premature because the council had yet to do due diligence in regard to the sites. Mr. Poling did not think the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo site was willing to sell as she hoped to develop her property herself. He said he had initially favored the City Hall site but had voted for the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo sites because of the information from the focus groups. Given the survey results, he thought the council would lose support for the project if it proposed to buy new properties. He would be willing to look at other City-owned sites. Mr. Penwell said that the City had approached the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo site through an independent appraiser about buying her property and different ways of valuing her property and she was unwilling to talk to that person. Mr. Clark noted his previous support for the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site, based on the focus groups, and said he had changed his mind because of the deed restriction and the survey. The survey clarified for him what he heard at the public forums. Some of the rationale he heard for the butterfly lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site was the reconnection to the Parks Blocks, which the survey indicated was not a concern for most of the respondents. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the existing City Hall site should not be the only option, and advocated for examining all potential options. Mayor Piercy liked the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site but said there were other ways she would like to use her energy as she also thought the existing site was a fine site. There was potential for using the site adjacent to City Hall to create a link to downtown. She thought the idea worth pursuing. Mr. Carlson said the City received appraisals for the butterfly lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site and learned the approximate value of the properties was over $2 million. The County would only agree to provide the City access to the butterfly parking lot if it replaced the parking that would be lost, and the County estimated the cost of replacing the stalls that would be lost at $11.2 million. The deed restrictions related to the butterfly lot remained to be resolved, but he thought could be accomplished. Ms. Taylor said the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo property did not intend to sell her property. Ms. Taylor said she liked the current site if it was remodeled and expanded, but that option had been eliminated; however, the City owned other sites in downtown and she did not want to limit discussion to the current site. She asked the cost of relocating employees twice. Ms. Ing estimated the cost at $2.5 million. Ms. Bettman recalled it was previously estimated at $2.6 million. Mr. Penwell said that assumed moving MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 8 Work Shop—City Hall Goal off the existing site and every one moving back in; it did not assume a separate patrol function or Municipal Court in the federal building. Almost everybody had moved off the site already. Mr. Zelenka requested updated cost estimates for relocation. Ms. Taylor suggested the Sears site as a possibility and noted it was in the urban renewal district, so urban renewal funds could be used for a new city hall. Mr. Carlson agreed. Ms. Taylor did not want to eliminate the option. Ms. Teninty reminded the council that it had agreed to retain the option because it was the third option favored by the community and was already owned by the City. The council agreed the site was moving forward as part of another project, but if that fell through, it was a viable site. Mayor Piercy said unless the council changed course, it had voted to move forward with a project on the Sears site; locating City Hall on that site would represent a major shift. Ms. Ortiz asked if there was any way she could receive a different cost estimate for the police patrol building based her what she had described in regard to her expectations of what it would contain. She wanted an estimate for surface as opposed to structured parking. Mr. Cohen said the consultant team could provide a range of costs and perhaps even point to some examples of other facilities. He said consultant team recommended establishing parameters as it was now using general empirical data. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that the issues of leadership and governance were of concern to the voters, and he advocated for a degree of council consensus on what ever was decided that would allow the council to speak with a unanimous voice and garner more public support and greater trust. He suggested that solving some of the City’s other problems another way to garner trust and build support. He wanted the council to spend more time on the subject to reach that degree of consensus. Ms. Solomon thanked Mayor Piercy for her statement regarding the Sears site. She said that the council had already embarked on a process and taking the Sears building out of the process would undermine the public involvement that occurred and further harm the council’s credibility. Ms. Bettman said she kept hearing at the last meeting where the council discussed the issue that the public process had not yet begun. She said there had been no public hearings. She believed that given the council’s decision about the KWG development proposal, the Sears site was not off the table. If the process was open, it was up to the community to determine what the objectives were for the site. Ms. Bettman said many people had mentioned the Sears site to her. Mr. Clark recalled that the council had discussed the need for a complete city block and the Sears site did not meet that criterion. Ms. Ing summarized the council’s information requests, which included: 1) a comparison of the costs of leasing space in the federal building versus buying the building; 2) more information on the costs of the patrol building and how they were established; 3) cost ranges for the patrol building based on less expensive criteria; 4) more due diligence on the deed restrictions associated with the butterfly parking lot; and 5) relocation costs with an escalation factor to 2010. Mr. Pryor suggested that on July 11, the council select a single site. He left the meeting. Mr. Clark requested information about why the EWEB site was not viable. Ms. Solomon thought the council had majority support for a single site and recommended that it proceed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 9 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Ms. Bettman cautioned that if the council was only to consider the options involving Rock ‘N Rodeo and the butterfly lot or the existing City Hall site on July 11, the outcome would not bode well for the future of the project. Mr. Zelenka thought the Sears site was acceptable as it was the back-up site to the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site. He agreed with the mayor that the cost and expense of holding on to the butterfly lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site were not worth it. He pointed out the only thing that had changed in regard to the existing City Hall site was the added nuance of the available space in the federal building. The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 10 Work Shop—City Hall Goal ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall June 25, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that the agenda item on eminent domain would be postponed for further study. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. John Brown , 101 East Broadway, Ward 5, thanked the councilors for their community service. He also thanked City Manager Dennis Taylor for his work and for being a “member of the community.” He stated that another river clean-up occurred over the weekend and it was attended by over 100 people. He was uncertain how many tons of garbage participants had pulled out of the water and from the riparian area. He asked the council to make a concerted effort and commitment to assist in monitoring the Willamette River, a community asset. He said he had taken a member of City staff on a tour of campsites on city property and there had been over a dozen of them. He asked how, in the grander scheme of things, the City could consider the further acquisition of lands if it could not take care of what was already there. He related that many people camp at the Bertelsen Slough and cause “irreparable” damage to the sensitive wetlands area. He felt the government did not want to take responsibility for the illegal activity that was occurring on the land. He heard from different agencies that there was not enough money or capacity to take action. He asked the council to help in any way it could. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, PO Box 24411, reiterated his allegations of drug use at the condominium complex he resided at. He felt he was not being responded to. th Drix , 307½ 14 Avenue, thanked the council for the opportunity to speak. He believed that new ideas were a “good thing.” He encouraged the community to be open to new ideas and new ways to look at problems. He said the City Hall was a meeting place that was special to the community. He thought where the new city hall wound up was not of great consequence. He suggested that Ya Po Ah Terrace could be a potential location for a new city hall. Regarding the two “holes” in downtown Eugene, he suggested the community could help to clean them up and volunteered to help. Peg Morton , 510 Van Buren Street, stated that she liked to walk as she was getting older. She related that she had discovered the Amazon Headwaters Forest. She thought it was beautiful and went there nearly MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting every week. She did not think it should be in competition with other parks for money. She averred that those spaces were needed for everyone who lived here. Michael Smith , 1630 Arthur Place, volunteer for the Human Rights Party of Oregon, wished to voice his support for the acquisition of the Amazon Headwaters Forest. He felt this was only one land use issue that the City would face this year. He said there was also the possibility of the Fairgrounds property coming available, the potential construction of a hospital, and an issue just arising with the proposed installation of a th franchised building products store on West 11 Avenue. He stated that he had attended the Neighborhood Summit and the top issues that were agreed upon were citizen participation and infill. He wondered if the level of citizen participation in the Amazon Headwater issue was something the council should take into consideration. He thought the best thing the council could do would be to offer the developers a fair amount of money. He asserted that the City risked losing its integrity by “always taking the side of the developers.” Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, passed out four more copies of a book on nanotechnology for the councilors. He asserted that there was a bill in the legislature that would require there to be six people with weapons on all of the campuses. He did not think that was the right response to recent events. He suggested that making tuition cheaper and addressing the maintenance backlog would be a better improvement to safety. He urged the council to take a stand opposing the bill through its Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Vishanoff expressed concern that “tasers would end up on campus.” Mr. Vishanoff commented that Senator Ron Wyden did not seem to know enough about the dangers of nanotechnology. He asserted that Senator Wyden had been a principal sponsor of a bill that would allocate $3.7 million for research on nanotechnology. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, president of the Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA), said he thought utilizing a public process in the Broadway redevelopment was the best way to undertake the project. He related that CPA had hosted a “Pit to Pit Walk” in the downtown area and heard good input from a variety of viewpoints. He had assumed that the West Broadway Advisory Committee would select a facilitator for the process but found this was not the case. He expressed concern that the committee charged with the selection of a facilitator included “at least six staff people.” He asserted that if the City wanted an engaged advisory committee with true “buy in” the committee should be allowed to select its facilitator. He felt the public process had been circumvented. Teressa O’Cäer , 5210 Canyon Drive, stated that her property was bordered on two sides by the Beverlys’ property. She had joined with neighbors to hold “at bay” the property owners who could potentially develop the site. She invited the councilors to come walk the trail through the woods there. She felt the councilors needed to see “this beautiful piece of property.” She believed it was a treasure for the “entire County” and that once it was gone it would be gone forever. Joy Gall , 4810 Mahalo Drive, stated that she had walked the trails through the Amazon headwaters area many times. She said the struggle to preserve the land had been going on for “dozens of years.” She opined that development in that area was tantamount to disaster. She averred that preservation in that area equaled “a little touch of perfection.” She thought there were many issues at hand, including economic conflict between people who wished to preserve the property and the people who had purchased it with the intent to develop the property and the impact of any increases in traffic. She asserted that it would take major changes in the street design to address traffic issues. She believed that given that tourism was important to the state, preservation of parks was very important. She called the area a “gem in the whole region.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Robert Olsen , 32810 Sisters Loop, called it a “no brainer” to preserve the Beverly/Green properties. He believed the properties to be unique. He averred that 94 percent of the South Hills was covered with housing with only “a little scrap in the corner” left. He felt that given that people had to fight to preserve it Eugene no longer deserved its reputation for being environmentally friendly. He called the issue regarding park land “disingenuous.” He felt that removing the golf course and the Ridgeline Trail from the roster would demonstrate that South Eugene had very little park land. Tom Halferty , 4510 Manzanita Street, thought it was a good idea to take another month to consider taking eminent domain of the two South Hills properties. He felt the value of the land had been inflated based on the number of houses that could allegedly be constructed on it. He disagreed with it. He showed a Lidar picture of the land which he asserted indicated the instability of the hillside. He provided the council with the Lidar image and other pictures. David Thor Johnson , 4986 Hunters Glen Drive, asked the councilors to walk the Beverly/Green properties with him. He thanked the councilors who supported using eminent domain to acquire the properties. He believed it was a courageous stand to take. He opined that houses built on the properties would not last. He also wished to thank City Manager Dennis Taylor for his service. Alice Pueschner , 1512 Barber Drive, said she was “not quite a NIMBY” but she did hike on the Bevery and Green properties. She commented that she would hate to think of the properties “going to developers.” She believed they were an essential part of the city of Eugene. She acknowledged that some people thought the south hills had too much park land and countered that the south hills was “the loveliest part of Eugene.” She declared that people who did not think they had enough park land in their neighborhoods should agitate for more. She said the neighborhood had worked hard to save the Beverly/Green properties. Ted Leadguard , 5205 Cold Springs Way, said he had just purchased property in Eugene. He related that he used to live in Virginia, 50 miles from Washington, DC. He said the area had been developed rapidly and described the ensuing detrimental effects mostly due to the contamination of an aquifer by uphill develop- ment. He asked that the council please see the importance of the watershed to Eugene. th Majeska Seese-Green , Van Buren Street and 5 Avenue, thanked the Mayor and the councilors who “worked to protect the headwaters for the whole city.” She noted her disagreement with an article in the paper written by former Eugene Mayor Jeff Miller that opined that the current mayor was not the “Mayor for all Eugene.” She asserted that there would be plenty of the bond money for parks if the “developers would do the right thing” and not try to gain the highest dollar value from the land. She declared that Mr. Green should be a Eugenean for all Eugene and not a Eugenean for “[his] own pocketbook.” Rob Handy , 455-½ River Road, said he was delighted to serve on the West Broadway Advisory Commit- tee. He commented that his partner was a first grade teacher, in part because she liked to be able to influence children at an age where they have to start figuring out how to have relationships and discipline in their lives. He thought the City was starting to understand the value of transparent public participation. He expressed concern that staff members were attempting to “take a narrow view of the motion” that directed the formation of the committee. He noted that the council motion directed that the consultant hired would perform a market analysis and economic feasibility studies in order to inform the committee deliberations. He felt the committee was getting “some push back” from staff members regarding the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Lotte Streisinger , 2075 Harris Street, supported saving the Amazon Headwaters. She said it was not a neighborhood issue for her as she did not live near it. She thanked the people who had worked hard to preserve it. She agreed that once the land was gone, it was gone forever. She reminded those present that Spencer’s Butte was intended to be logged in the 1930s but the City had managed to purchase that area. She felt thankful for this action. She averred that what they were trying to do was to preserve the land for the future. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, asserted that the analysis of park land in the South Hills area that indicated that the area had 21 percent of the population but 44 percent of the park land was not accurate because most of the parks were “regional facilities.” She opined that removing the “regional parks” from that inventory would indicate that actually the south hills had “hardly any” parks. She also disagreed with the assertion that the City would not be able to afford to maintain more park land. Susie Cousar , 2919 Crocker Road, supported preservation of the Amazon Headwaters. She related that she was a college teacher with a focus on ecology and human health. She was concerned about what was happening in the world, but she thought Eugene was touted as the sustainable city. She said it was very important that they not be “a status quo USA. anywhere.” She averred that in order to continue to maintain the sustainable community it was important to make the decision to preserve the Beverly/Green properties. She encouraged anyone who did not support doing so to “read up” about human health, ecology, and eco- systems. She added that the City could never have too many parks. She wished to stress that she was from Santa Clara and favored having parks all over the City. She declared that the real issue lay in saving the land. Donna O’Neil , 3525 High Street, said she walked the Amazon trail often. She commented that it was the one place she could go to hear something “besides crows.” She opined that walking in the woodland was spectacular. She shared her favorite bird call. She related that she had seen three pileated woodpeckers and it had “made” her week. She felt the developers were “stealing” the land from Eugeneans to build large homes on it. She averred that it would be a “tragedy” to let this happen. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum. She said she had been engaged in the formation and initial meeting of the West Broadway Advisory Committee. She hoped they could get everyone engaged in order to get the process going. She invited comments from the councilors. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone who testified. She wished to specifically thank those people who came out in support of the preservation of the Amazon Headwaters. Councilor Bettman commented that she kept hearing that a facilitator would be hired for the West Broadway Advisory Committee. She did not believe that the council motion had directed that a facilitator be hired. She recalled that it had directed the hiring of an urban planner and that the City should secure the services of a qualified consultant to undertake the market studies and data collection. She believed that there were two different positions and neither of them was to serve as a facilitator. She did not think this precluded the committee from making a choice of facilitators. She asked if a legal opinion had been obtained in order to counter the idea that the West Broadway Advisory Committee should have a choice about the facilitator. City Manager Taylor explained that staff discussed the hiring with the City’s purchasing division and the City Attorney and based on oral conversations there was no legal opinion having to do with how service contracts were purchased. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman was concerned that the City would not be able to require conditions that the community has to be met without them being in the MOU. She said unless the committee had input into the MOU, they did not have “any influence” over the process. Councilor Zelenka thanked everyone for coming to testify. He believed that the West Broadway Advisory Committee process needed to be careful, thoughtful, and collaborative. He noted that his motion had directed the City Manager to select the facilitator/urban planner for the process. He hoped that the City Manager would take input from the committee prior to hiring. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for their continued work to save the Amazon Headwaters. She felt there was wide support for the preservation of the area. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - April 25, 2007, Work Session - May 9, 2007, Work Session - May 16, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4913 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption forRe- th sidential property Located at 693 East 16 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Corey Development, LLC) D. Adoption of Neighborhood Association Charter Revisions Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted a correction to the minutes and pulled Item C for discussion Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item C passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman observed that the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) that was on the docket was within the University of Oregon area. She asserted the proposed development was not for family-sized housing; rather, it was for students. She noted that a vintage house was being torn down at the site and that rents for the new development would ultimately be $925 per month. She thought the housing development would be built regardless of whether it received the MUPTE. She averred that granting a MUPTE burdened city services and that a 10-year exemption removed resources from the public services required to serve the development. She could not see a tax exemption being used to “subsidize building student housing.” Mayor Piercy pointed out that the West University Neighbors (WUN) submitted a letter in support of granting the MUPTE to this development. Councilor Zelenka said it seemed like a nice project. He related that he had taken a driving tour of the WUN earlier in the day and had observed substantial development. He asserted that there were four projects under construction and eight projects that had just been constructed. He believed the point of MUPTE was MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting intended to be an incentive to get projects built where they would not otherwise be built. He did not believe there was any need for such an incentive in the University of Oregon area. He indicated he would oppose the exemption. Councilor Taylor opposed the exemption for the reasons already stated. She averred it was “obviously student housing” and it was “obviously being built for profit.” She thought anyone could say they could not afford to build a project without a tax break. Councilor Bettman commented that while she appreciated that the WUN residents had weighed in, she felt they only looked at a “narrow range of issues” and they were not in a position to “weigh the pros and cons.” She said the neighborhood group had not participated in the budget process and had not had to “horse trade” to fund things such as human services which “may be a higher priority than to provide a developer with a profit.” Councilor Clark pointed out that with the closing of the Westmoreland Student Housing there was a distinct need for student housing in the University of Oregon area. He intended to support the MUPTE because he believed additional student housing created less of a drain on low-income housing and this created more opportunity for it to be available in the city. He noted that he had once resided in housing adjacent to the existing house on the property and considered it “high time” the property was redeveloped. Councilor Solomon supported the addition of good quality student housing. She observed that the MUPTE would provide a total exemption of $150,710 over ten years and reminded the council that in one budget cycle, the council will have spent that amount of money or more to build council offices. She said this was notable when talking about spending taxpayers’ dollars. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Poling, Solomon, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Bettman, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of granting the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption to the project and the motion failed. Mayor Piercy commented that she had been persuaded by Councilor Zelenka’s “look around” and his sense that the MUPTE was not really needed for development in that area. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Manufactured Dwelling Park Closures; and Amending Sections 2.1060 and 2.1086 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Taylor invited Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, to the podium to provide a short overview of the ordinance. Mr. Weinman explained that the City of Eugene was the first of four cities in recent history to pass protections for owners of manufactured homes and manufactured dwelling parks. He said those protections had become less effective over time as inflation had eroded “the lay of the land.” He related that all parks were currently not covered and only special category tenants, those who were over 70 years old, those who were disabled, and low-income tenants, were protected. He stated that there were 34 parks representing over 3,000 spaces in Eugene. He stated that the Housing Policy Board (HPB) subcommittee had spent a lot of time reviewing the current ordinance and developing a recommendation for changes to it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Tom Mitchell , 3355 North Delta Highway, #45, submitted his testimony in writing. He related that he had lived in a manufactured home park for nine years. He said residents feel threatened by the proposed hospital development. He surmised that if a commercial development was approved for construction across the street from the manufactured home park, the out-of-town landlord could decide to sell the land on which the park was located. He supported the proposed City of Eugene ordinance. He believed it would provide protec- tions to them in the event the park their home was located in was closed or converted. He thought provisions for relocation costs in the ordinance were fair. He noted that if owners had the money to pay actual moving costs they would be reimbursed by the park owner within 10 days of receiving the receipt for the amount of costs incurred or they could choose to receive a lesser amount up front. He said most important was the provision that directed that if a home could not be moved the park owner would pay the homeowner the real market value of the home. He noted that a survey of vacant spaces in mobile and manufactured home parks had identified only 80 spaces in the City of Eugene. He predicted that if the park he resided in closed, the 192 double and triple wide homes would have no place to be relocated. He felt that a park closure could mean they would lose their home entirely. He urged the council to pass the ordinance and protect the vulnerable citizens that reside in the manufactured home parks. Barbara Mitchell , 3355 North Delta Highway, #45, submitted her testimony in writing. She echoed Mr. Mitchell’s testimony. She offered five points suggested to be added to make the ordinance stronger: ? Operate with State law so that provisions could not be construed as to conflict with it; ? Owner relief with writ of review – adding something such as the Wilsonville language could make the ordinance appear more comprehensive and balanced; ? Private right of action should be provided to residents and park owners for legal remedies; ? Severability – if any portion of the ordinance should be held invalid it should not affect the validity of the remaining portions; ? An emergency clause which would make the ordinance effective on the date of passage. Ms. Mitchell noted that the City of Eugene would have 180 days to add to its ordinance after the end of the legislative session. She urged the council to make the City of Eugene ordinance as “bullet proof as possible.” Troy Brost , owner of a local manufactured home park, 4055 Royal Avenue, noted that he had served as the “Lone Ranger no vote” on the HPB subcommittee on manufactured home parks. He provided copies of his testimony in writing. He called the ordinance “ill policy” for the manufactured housing industry. He had promoted a four-legged stool concept regarding park closure, with the four legs representing the homeowner, the land owner, state government, and local government. He believed that affordable housing was a societal issue that should not be subsidized by any one industry or entity. He thought it was a responsibility of each of the stakeholders. Mr. Brost pointed out that homeowners signed an agreement upon moving into a manufactured home park indicating they understood the rental agreement could be terminated. He also pointed out that the new Marriott Residence Inn was on the site of a former trailer park and the property tax revenue from the site had increased by 250 percent. He suggested that the solution lay in exacting $5,000, $7,000, or $9,000 from the landlord based on the size of the home, giving a $10,000 tax credit to the homeowner from the state, and granting the land owner a five-year exemption from the property tax increase. He believed his suggestion was a more fair distribution of the burden among the “four legs of the stool.” Chuck Carpenter , Portland, Executive Director of Manufacture Housing Communities of Oregon, stated that his organization represented 500 manufactured housing communities across the State of Oregon out of MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting approximately 1,200. He noted that only five percent of those closed in the last five years. He wished to reiterate that residents of manufactured communities were informed of their rights and responsibilities before they sign a rental agreement. He believed that there were many reasons why people choose to live in manufactured home communities. He said rents were typically reasonable and did not reflect the land value. He thought the ordinance would make the discrepancy between the value of the land and the rents even larger. He felt the ordinance would make the landlord the victim. He averred that the landlord had done his or her part to provide a housing alternative and would, with the ordinance, be denied fair compensation for the land. He foresaw a steep increase in rents in order to pay the increase in exit costs, and a deterioration of properties. Zachary Vishanoff , a resident living on Patterson Street, related that his grandparents had lived in a “trailer park” in Santa Barbara, California. He said the ordinance would affect people like them in the Eugene community. He averred that the City should go to “great lengths” to mitigate the situation so that a Project Homeless Connect type event three years from now did not include “a bunch of people who used to live in these parks.” He believed that the owners of the parks were not the most vulnerable. He thought a lot of the parks were in scenic spots and were therefore more susceptible to redevelopment. He encouraged the City to conduct an audit of its low-income housing in order to determine what was out there and how quickly it was disappearing. Peter Ferris , P.O. Box 263, Bayview Mobile Home Park, Waldport, commented that the City Council had to be “Solomon” as it was a “daunting and difficult issue.” He said he had been a lobbyist for Oregon Manufactured Homeowners United over the past legislative session. He averred that they were trying to fashion a “win-win” situation. He believed the ordinance to be good public policy. He acknowledged the owners concerns about costs but pointed out that the homeowners “lose everything.” He said they lose “their homes, their affordable housing, their independence and their communities.” He asserted that people who lose their places end up being sent to nursing homes or dying or filing for bankruptcy. He urged the council to take a good look at the ordinance and take its time deliberating on it. Jerry A. Harden , 1400 Candlelight Drive, #224, Briarwood Mobile Home Park, proposed some changes to the ordinance including giving 100 percent coverage to all residents of mobile home parks regardless of zoning. He said people at the lowest income levels were limited to 50 percent coverage because of the location of the parks. He asked that a provision be added that would prohibit mobile home park owners from discriminating against single-wide or older homes. He thought park owners could “cherry pick revenue” by picking newer or larger homes. He also suggested that a park owner appeal provision be applied, such as stating provisions in the ordinance could be appealed to the City Council by park owners in the event unforeseen circumstances warranted exemption. He averred that many other cities were likely to use the Eugene ordinance as a model for their own ordinances. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She noted that she had been tracking this issue carefully. She called for councilor questions and comments. Councilor Zelenka thanked Councilor Solomon for serving on the HPB and for helping to craft the compromise the ordinance represented. He said it was important to protect low income housing. Councilor Bettman had heard lobbyists state that this type of ordinance would eliminate manufactured housing as an affordable housing due to the fact that it would not be profitable anymore. She asked for information on whether the statement could be substantiated. City Manager Taylor responded that it would be possible to ask PDD staff their opinion on it but it would be difficult to speculate what would happen in the future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman remarked that inclusion of an amendment to prevent the exclusion of single-wide mobile homes if the park already contained single-wide homes and older homes seemed fair and requested language to that end. Councilor Zelenka noted that Mr. Harden had suggested protections of mobile home owners regardless of the zoning of the park they reside in. He asked if the number of people who were affected was known. City Manager Taylor replied that Mr. Weinman could obtain that number for the council. 4. ACTION: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of May 8, 2007, May 22, 2007, May 29, 2007, and June 6, 2007 Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to ratify the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations actions as set forth in the minutes of the May 8, May 22, May 29, and June 6, 2007 meetings. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman as to whether the bill (House Bill 5036) had been “gutted and stuffed” because it did not mention Lane Transit District’s (LTD) request for $10 million, Intergovern- mental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson explained that HB 5036 was a budgeting bill providing specific lottery backed funding for specific projects. She stated that the City’s original interest in the bill was because Lane Transit District (LTD) had requested support of their request for $10 million in lottery backed bonds, but had not been able to get its request included in the bill, adding that the bill had passed earlier in the day by a 42:7 vote in the House. Councilor Bettman said this left the City “with a different issue,” that is, the use of lottery bonds to fund capital construction projects. Ms. Wilson replied that there were a couple of issues with the bill. She stated that the bill, in its current form, increased the lottery bond issuance from $227 million to $248.7 million and it included the issuance of lottery bonds to fund projects for providing assistance to those persons at risk of homelessness, a parking facility in the City of Hillsboro, money for the Coos Bay channel, for Oregon Public Broadcasting to build digital transmission facilities to be in compliance with federal transmission requirements in 2009, money for a southeast extension project for light rail, and $20 million to provide grants to municipalities to purchase and maintain streetcars with the requirement that the streetcars had to be manufactured in Oregon by Oregon-owned businesses. Councilor Bettman asked if the City could apply for funding from the streetcar allocation. Ms. Wilson responded that it could. Councilor Bettman opined that there were good things and bad things in the bill. She stated that bonding on future lottery revenue in order to fund capital projects only perpetuated our reliance on the lottery, and she opposed bonding on future lottery revenue. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Wilson stated that it had a good chance of passing in the Senate, with only the Hillsboro parking facility being at issue. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the position from a Pri- ority 3 Oppose to a Priority 3 Support. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting There was some discussion on being neutral on the bill. Councilor Bettman responded that it probably would not be a good idea to take a neutral position on the bill and then later ask for some of the streetcar funding. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 7:0; Councilor Solomon had temporarily left the dais. Councilor Bettman asked if the City could apply for funding for a study for streetcars. She requested a memorandum outlining the eligibility requirements and the timelines for applying for such funding. Councilor Bettman asked why the City of Eugene was paying the majority of the match for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant. Emergency Program Manager Joe Rizzi responded that funding for the first 2005 COPS grant totaled $4,387,000 of which $3 million was grant funding from the federal government and $1 million was a local match. He said at the time the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) contributed $1.1 million; the City of Eugene contributed $95,000 as did the City of Springfield and Lane County. He noted that the City of Eugene had utilized telecommunications fund money for its portion of the match. He stated that the project would be completed in February 2008. He explained the increase in capacity the project would provide when completed with the aid of a map. He said it would increase public safety “tremendously” because a police officer in a medium density building would now be able to communicate with dispatch without having to go outside of the building. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Rizzi explained that the City of Eugene and its partners had been invited to apply again for the same COPS grant. He said they had been pleased to have another opportunity and that they would seek to add the Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the system. He stated that they would be able to communicate with each other and also would be able to communicate from the interior of buildings. He reported that the partners for the second phase were the City of Eugene Police and Fire & EMS Departments, Central Lane 911 Communications, the City of Springfield, Springfield Fire and Life Safety Department, Lane County Sheriff’s Office, EWEB, Lane Rural Fire Rescue, Lane County Fire District 1, Santa Clara Fire District, and the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He related that they had broken down the amount of the backbone of the system so that each organization would pay a proportionate amount and the amount each paid for radios was solely based on the number of radios they were purchasing. He stressed that the reason the City of Eugene was paying the largest portion was because it was purchasing more radio units than any other jurisdiction. Councilor Bettman said she had thought the grant given in 2005 had covered all aspects of public safety for the City of Eugene. Mr. Rizzi responded that the 2005 grant had been specifically for law enforcement; the present grant opened it up for fire safety personnel as well. He said they hoped to overlay the fire department on top of the same system that had been built so that the same backbone would be used but the channels would be increased. He noted that the Fire Department had a system dating to the 1970s that had been designed for 3,000 calls per year whereas the department currently received 20,000 calls per year. He averred that whether the City pursued the COPS grant or not the fire communication system would have to be overhauled in the near future. Councilor Bettman asked if the infrastructure had been installed with the 2005 grant money. Mr. Rizzi affirmed that it was. Councilor Bettman asked why the current amount of money, ostensibly for radios only, was greater than the amount of money in the 2005 grant. Mr. Rizzi replied that there was more to it. He explained that at present the Fire Department utilized Very High Frequency (VHF) and the new system was MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Ultra-High Frequency (UHF), which provided the capacity to communicate from inside of buildings. He stated that the whole department was now utilizing VHF and the grant sought to switch them over to UHF. He added that the VHF system for the Fire Department was overloaded and could not be extended. Councilor Bettman asked if the money that the City of Eugene had contributed had only been allocated to the cost of the system upgrades to Eugene within its city limits. Mr. Rizzi responded that it had not been limited by the City’s boundaries. Councilor Bettman asserted that the City of Eugene was subsidizing other jurisdictions. Mr. Rizzi replied that he considered the amount of money the City of Eugene was contributing to be the “best deal in the whole system.” He explained that by extending out past the city limits it gave the City of Eugene interoperability between additional agencies, both police and fire, in surrounding communi- ties. Councilor Bettman said she was not talking about the match being proportional to the entire grant; rather she was talking about the City’s share of the match being proportional to the other jurisdictions’ shares of the match. Mr. Rizzi believed it was proportional. He reiterated that each agency contributed a certain amount of for the basic system and then the additional amount was for the actual subscriber units. He explained that the City of Springfield had about half of the number of units the City of Eugene had and was paying about half of the amount Eugene was paying. Councilor Bettman asked if when the grant was done the area would be completely interoperable. Mr. Rizzi replied that the interoperability would be vastly improved. He noted that they were also putting in additional towers. Councilor Bettman asked what other cities were benefiting from it. Mr. Rizzi replied that they were the same as the partners he had already listed. Councilor Bettman averred that she did not see any other cities listed aside from Springfield. Randy Groves, Fire Chief, elaborated, explaining that the fire districts that the City of Eugene was partnering with covered other cities and sometimes more than one. He reminded the Mayor and Council that the City of Eugene operated an Ambulance Service Area (ASA) that was larger than the City of Eugene and was also the regional state hazardous materials team responsible to all of Lane County, for which they did receive some state money. He noted that they provided regional search and rescue services as well. He underscored that the communication system for the Fire Department was aging. He said for every dollar they spent, they received three back in grant funding. He added that another leveraging point was that the department would be able to connect with the existing system and this would benefit the City. Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the grant. Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for staff’s diligence for identifying a source of funding and leveraging partners. He thought the grant was a “great thing” and that the City would receive a lot for its investment. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to authorize the City of Eugene to apply for grant funding from the Community Oriented Policing Services Technology Pro- gram for funds to improve data and voice interoperability and that it matched the require- ments as listed in the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Domain for the Acquisition by Condemnation of Property for Park and Open Space Land Near the Amazon Creek Headwa- ters in South Eugene; and Declaring an Immediate Effective Date This item was postponed to July 9, 2007. The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 12 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 27, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal—Arts and Outdoors Action Plan Update City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Acting Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Renee Grube, who was joined by Hult Center Director Laura Niles and Public Information Director Jan Bohman. Ms. Bohman reviewed the elements of the action plan and noted some of the focuses in the plan and the activities that were planned in the upcoming year. Ms. Niles noted two of the outcomes of the initiative, the first of which was the Cultural Policy Review. She said the council would see the results of the review in July, and she noted the project was selected as a University of Oregon research project which she anticipated could result in more collaboration with the th University. The second was “Hult 25,” the 25 anniversary of the Hult Center. She noted some of the events associated with the anniversary, specifically the free activities being offered to the public. Mayor Piercy thought the plan was exciting and she predicted Eugene would be “hopping” over the next year. She expressed her appreciation to staff. She said she thought staff had made progress in “selling Eugene better” so that residents knew what they had and appreciated it more. Mayor Piercy thanked those who had participated in the Cultural Policy Review, and acknowledged the hard work that had been done through that process. Speaking to West Broadway arts opportunities, Mayor Piercy believed that the West Broadway project needed to account for the fact there was already art downtown and integrate that art in the design. Regarding the pedestrian and bicycle plan, she commended those who had advocated for more bicycle path signage. She asked when the statue for the Japanese memorial would arrive. Ms. Niles anticipated it would be installed in August and a ceremony would commemorate the installation. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for all its work and collaboration that occurred. She acknowledged and appreciated the access that was provided to those families and individuals who could not otherwise afford ticketed events. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 27, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka was impressed by how much was going on. He had noticed and appreciated the many multi- cultural offerings. He thought the work that had been done was great and looked forward to the report of the Cultural Policy Review steering committee. Mr. Clark also commended staff and expressed appreciation for the outdoor movie offerings. He noted that staff mentioned the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, and said he understood the plan had been remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and was not legally in effect, although he understood the City was still consulting the plan. City Manager Taylor deferred to Katherine Brotherton of the City Attorney’s Office, who concurred the plan had been remanded. The basis of the remand was LUBA’s conclusion that the City Council needed to adopt it as a refinement plan to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). She said the acquisition list had been by the City Council but was on appeal to LUBA; however, she maintained that list was still in effect. She acknowledged the PROS Plan was “hanging out there” but she believed the council could still consult it as a guiding document. She indicated she would be happy to provide a written opinion. She noted that the City hoped to get the case involving the projects list dismissed or to have a decision within a couple of days. Mr. Clark asked if the City could acquire parks using the plan as a basis for those acquisitions before it adopted the plan as a refinement plan. Ms. Brotherton said yes. Ms. Solomon termed the action plan very exciting and said there appeared to be a lot of work involved. She asked if any consultants would be employed for things such as marketing. Ms. Bohman said that the City would get a steering committee of its partners together and discuss next steps. She said that group could recommend that the City secure consulting services for marketing. Ms. Solomon asked if the council would approve that expenditure. Ms. Bohman was unsure, suggesting it depended on the resources the different partners could bring to the table. City Manager Taylor thought the City would get some free marketing through the “Eugene 08” effort and then the Budget Committee would recommend additional expenditures in the next budget based on the action plan. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the Arts and Outdoors Updated Ac- tion Plan as recommended. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 2. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Public Improvements Development Review Manager Peggy Keppler of the Public Works Department introduced an ordinance intended to bring Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code in line with the rest of the City Code and recent changes in State law. City Attorneys Jerome Lidz and Ms. Brotherton as well as Data Manager Fred McVey were also present for the item. Ms. Keppler briefly described the staff review that had occurred, which resulted in a list of suggested changes, some very minor and others more significant. She reviewed the categories in which the changes were made. She invited questions. Councilors asked questions of the attorneys and staff clarifying the changes to Chapter 7 being proposed through the ordinance. Ms. Bettman requested that staff prepare an amendment extending the warranty period for structural deficiencies and faults found in privately engineered and constructed public improvements. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the request. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 27, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Keppler confirmed that the code section related to driveway access was not deleted but would come back to the council after further changes were made. She further confirmed that garbage was now addressed in Chapter 6. Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Keppler indicated she would modify Section 7.415 to make it clear that the text was related to curb cuts. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Lidz said he was unaware of any national standard related to warranties for privately engineering construction improvements. Ms. Keppler said that the warranty period was consistent with existing contract law. Ms. Bettman questioned the rationale for requiring property owners to install sidewalks when remodeling, and if the property was on a corner they would be required to install a curb cut, which was more expensive. She suggested the ordinance would have a dampening effect on people’s ability to remodel their homes and suggested it be amended to ensure it did not impact homeowners remodeling to such a great extent. Ms. Bettman was glad to hear the council would be hearing more about driveway access and access management. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 7.410(b) and said she would be looking for language that weighed the traffic study and substantiation against the additional congestion and conflicts with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists. Mr. Clark said he was recently asked by a constituent about some survey work being done by a City employee in Lane County; the resident had asked the City employee about the work he was doing and he had indicated he was surveying for curb cuts for future improvements. Ms. Keppler said that when the City received a land use application and had to make findings for what was required, staff would look at the existing road way to determine the scope of improvements to ensure the requirements imposed on the applicant were consistent. She did not think staff would do that work otherwise. Mr. Clark concluded that such work was generally related to specific applications. Ms. Keppler concurred. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 12:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 27, 2007 Page 3 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 11, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Poling would be unable to attend the meeting due to a family emergency. 1. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal – Downtown Initiative Action Plan Assistant City Manager Angel Jones introduced Chief Randy Groves, the executive leading the project team for the council goal, and Associate Planner Nan Laurence, team member. She said this was the first time the council had reviewed the action plan and staff was asking for direction to guide their efforts. Chief Groves commented that the goal was a very large and ambitious one and said the action plan represented staff’s best efforts to develop an initial plan and associated strategies, but he welcomed comments and suggestions for adjustments. He said council leadership was vital to any downtown revitalization effort, with the council defining success. He said the draft action plan was strongly connected to the Eugene Downtown Plan, which was the guiding document for revitalization efforts. He said the assumption was that the downtown initiative was inclusive of the entire downtown, not just the proposed West Broadway project. He said the action plan had a five-year planning horizon under the supposition that the downtown initiative would remain a council goal for longer than the two-year goal cycle, although staff recognized that a future council could amend or eliminate it as a priority. Chief Groves said staff had developed four key values to focus their efforts: vision, teamwork, communica- tion and commitment. He asked for the council’s direction in defining and guiding the role of the staff team and its relationship to the Planning and Development Department technical team and the Broadway Development Advisory Committee, which were also working towards downtown revitalization. He said there were many outcomes, large and small, associated with the goal, with the council’s stated goal being a revitalized downtown. He said specific outcomes came from individual projects and outcomes and ranged in size and scope. He reviewed several examples, such as improvements to benefit the Farmers Market and the council’s direction to support both the Beam and KWG concepts for West Broadway. He said staff was currently focused on implementing strategies from the Downtown Plan and many of the actions and projects built on one another and the results might be sequential, with initial, interim and long-term outcomes. Ms. Laurence stated that the 71 implementation strategies from the Downtown Plan spoke to an enormous range of actions addressing all of downtown and provided the specific action items for the initiative. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 1 Work Session said many of the strategies were opportunity-driven and many were interrelated, but all of them were attempts to implement the adopted policies in the Downtown Plan. She emphasized the importance of a diverse staff team to ensure coordination of the City’s efforts. She said staff was developing a more detailed matrix to track progress on each strategy and the associated key staff. Ms. Taylor questioned why it was necessary for the council to vote on the item as it seemed more like a report. She asked if any part of the action plan would raise the debt limit or expand the boundaries for the urban renewal district. Chief Groves said the action plan did not include that level of specificity; the intent was to provide a framework to guide staff efforts consistent with council direction. Ms. Taylor said that some strategies, such as strategies 9 and 11, were of concern. Ms. Laurence said that the adopted Downtown Plan was being implemented based on council direction and the implementation strategies were a part of the Downtown Plan; no new actions were being proposed other than those already in the plan. Ms. Taylor asked for assurance that the council was not voting to raise the debt limit or expand the boundaries. Assistant City Manager Jones said that any staff action would be based on the council’s direction and the council could decide at some point in the future to provide that direction; however, the council was not being asked currently to take any action related to the urban renewal district. Ms. Taylor asked why strategy No. 37 was a medium instead of high priority. Ms. Laurence said that could be made a high priority in the staff work plan if the council directed. Chief Groves said the scope of the action plan was so large that staff hoped the council could help focus staff efforts. Ms. Taylor said that many of the strategies that were on hold seemed to be simple and easily accomplished. She asked what the term “opportunity-driven” meant. Ms. Laurence gave as an example the strategy to th enhance the visual and physical access at the end of 8 Avenue where it met the riverfront. She said staff was working with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) because of the opportunity provided by the new substation. She said that staff had discussed way to provide places that appealed to children and families and was looking for opportunities, but had not estimated costs or brought the item before the council. She said that implementing some of the strategies hinged on availability of staff or financial resources and the purpose of the work session was to determine if the action plan and priorities needed to be modified to fit the council’s expectations. Ms. Taylor observed that some of the strategies on hold, such as signs, would not be large or expensive projects and could be done fairly soon to make the downtown more accessible and attractive. She asked why encouraging and supporting a stable arts community was on hold. Ms. Laurence replied that was happening to some extent through other opportunities and some of the loan programs, but when staff took on larger projects and staff resources were shifted to those projects other things that did not have the same level of priority got put on hold temporarily. Chief Groves added that there was another council goal team working specifically on the arts and outdoors and efforts were coordinated. Ms. Taylor asserted that the council had not decided to support the Beam and KWG proposals; the decision was to investigate and was not a final decision. Mayor Piercy interjected that the council direction, as voted on, was to move the two West Broadway development projects forward and bring an advisory group together to work with developers on those projects. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated she had voted against the goal because given its long-range implications and extraordi- nary amount of outcomes and implementation strategies it should be an ongoing work plan for the council and City departments. She said it would be impossible for the council to address the 71 outcomes in a work session forum and suggest revisions to the action plan. She said she was in favor of some of the outcomes and opposed to others and would vote against the plan because approval would convey acceptance of each of the implementation strategies. Ms. Bettman noted that sections related to the City Hall and police initiatives did not refer to a City Hall/police station or discuss police infrastructure being downtown. She asked if a police station in another location was being considered and if not, then a police station linked with the civic center should be reflected in the action plan. Chief Groves said the plan did not get to that level of specificity but he understood Ms. Bettman’s point. Mr. Pryor indicated he liked the plan so far and understood that staff was asking if it reflected the council's emphasis and priorities. He assumed over the next several months the council and staff would work on determining which of the 71 strategies should receive higher or lower priority. With respect to the large number of medium priority items, he said it would be helpful to know what timeline that status represented and whether there was an order in which they might be accomplished. He was interested in the staff's approach to structuring or phasing the strategies. Mr. Clark also expressed his approval of the plan. He highlighted some of the strategies that had special interest for him, including creating special places and a cultural center. He said creating an attraction for residents and surrounding communities was an essential part of developing a vital downtown. He thought that locating the Lane County Historical Museum in the downtown area would be a cultural asset. He supported an expanded goal for the Farmers Market as an integral strategy for a lively downtown. He hoped that maintenance, code enforcement, and public safety would be part of creating open spaces. Mr. Zelenka said he was reluctant to approve the draft plan as he was uncertain what some of the strategies meant and suggested taking some time for councilors to ask for additional details. Ms. Ortiz said she was willing to agree to Mr. Zelenka's suggestion, but hoped that there was appreciation for the work that had already been done and not consider adding new strategies without discussing them with staff. She commended Chief Groves and the staff team for their efforts. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for the work and was in favor of Mr. Zelenka's suggestion. She asked how "medium" was defined. She perceived some of the strategies as being ongoing initiatives. She was interested in ways to integrate green space throughout the downtown area. She asked if the council had approved all of the strategies in the draft action plan. Ms. Laurence replied that all of the strategies were included in the Downtown Plan. She said the council approved by ordinance the policies in the Downtown Plan and the implementation strategies were examples of ways to implement the policies. Assistant City Manager Jones reiterated that this was the first time the council had seen the draft action plan and she expected there would be a number of sessions to narrow the range of strategies down to a more defined direction based on the council's involvement. She said the next would be to respond to the council's requests for more information, definition of priority levels, timelines, phasing, or any other details that would be helpful. Mr. Zelenka suggested that councilors could email staff with requests for information and staff could assemble the responses for the full council. He suggested that the strategies could also be sorted in several MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 3 Work Session ways, including status (completed, on hold, in process) and by priority (low, medium, high). He said it was difficult to process the strategies as they were currently organized by broad category. Ms. Taylor agreed that the council did not adopt the strategies. She stated that the council's discussed the KWG and Beam proposals in terms of "getting engaged" and not "getting married" and it was not a final decision. She thought several strategies should be moved to high priority, such as Nos. 52, 48, 70 and fixed rail transit. She agreed with Mr. Clark about the importance of the Farmers Market and favored Mr. Zelenka's suggestion to postpone action until more information was provided. Ms. Bettman agreed that more information about the status of strategies and their potential was required. She questioned why conducting a study of riparian habitat was on hold when the City was in the process of providing technical expertise to EWEB on its master planning process. She noted that enhancing the 13th Avenue corridor was in process but did not think there had ever been a discussion about it. Continuing, Ms. Bettman recollected that during the council's discussions with PeaceHealth one of the options was using bonding authority to build a community hospital. She said that other cities had done that and then attracted a provider to the nonprofit hospital. She pointed out there was $50 million in urban renewal money and yet the strategy to work with major medical providers to locate their facilities in and near downtown was on hold. Regarding the strategy to promote multi-story, mixed-use structures, she said that mixed-use did not have to be in the same structure; it could be block-by-block or area-by-area. She said investing in public infrastructure such as a streetcar to stimulate redevelopment was the best way to enhance downtown but the City had never pursued funding for a study or right-of-way acquisition. Mayor Piercy urged staff to confirm whether issues raised during the work session represented the position of the council or just one councilor and the extent to which there was support for that issue. She hoped that signs in the downtown area would not only identify places but also tell the story of the whole community. Mr. Zelenka said he wanted to see strategies sorted by status and priority and more granularity on "medium" provided. He also wanted definitions of "in process" and "on hold" and encouraged councilors to email staff with their specific questions about the action plan. Mr. Clark asked for more detail on time horizons for accomplishing strategies and information on currently identified potential barriers to accomplishment, as well as any sequential issues. He was also interested in historical information about downtown and the community. Ms. Bettman did not think postponing action would change the direction. She did not want to take action on the plan at this point as approving it would mean approving all of the strategies and the positions staff had taken on them. She felt those needed to be narrowed and refined by the council. Assistant City Manager Jones said staff could provide information on all of the classifications and identify policy versus implementation strategy. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal – City Hall Complex Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects stated that the purpose of the work session was to provide information requested by the council on several issues and that information was provided as attachments to the Agenda Item Summary. He hoped the council would take action on three key questions: MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 4 Work Session ? project site, ? approach to consolidation options, and ? council direction for completion of the remaining work for implementation and planning phase of the City Hall complex. Mr. Cohen said the consultants agreed with using the currently City Hall site for the project and master planning that site would allow it to accommodate full consolidation, either wholly or incrementally. He said that would provide an appropriately sized site area that would maximize future flexibility and was located adjacent to other governmental entities. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to use the ex- isting City Hal site for the planning and design of City Hall. Ms. Bettman asked if the option to build and occupy a patrol facility first prior to the move would occur before or after the ballot measure. Mr. Cohen said the assumption was after the ballot measure, but that would be the council's decision. Ms. Bettman said she assumed an incremental approach would mean a smaller bond measure to build a non- consolidated space and would require a second bond measure, which she felt spelled the failure of bond measures and would result in moving forward with only a police station and that had been the preference all along. She pointed out that the public preference was for a City-owned site and not necessarily the current City Hall site. She asked if the County commissioners had taken a position regarding sale of the butterfly lot. Mr. Penwell replied that staff and consultants had met with the County's facilities subcommittee, which indicated it was open to proposals. He said that staff had conducted due diligence but would not present a formal proposal unless the council decided to continue pursuing that site. Ms. Bettman asked if calculations of additional costs for relocation were based on an incremental approach. Mr. Cohen said the master plan process being proposed was intended to provide the council with more information to answer many of the questions being raised. He said there were many consolidation options and the council did not have to choose one at this time. He said the council could decide among options once the master planning process had provided details. He said that the other sites had been evaluating using the criteria developed with input from the council and the public and the recommendation for the current City Hall site was based on those criteria. He said an incremental approach was not reflected in estimates of moving and relocation costs and the intent of master planning was to identify with more certainty those costs. He said the math had to be based on a real scenario. Mr. Penwell said that there was a clear preference for keeping the police patrol facility and City Hall as a consolidated project. Mr. Pryor remarked that he had always preferred the current City Hall site as the most reasonable and direct approach with a site that met the criteria and maximized options for consolidation. He said many sites had been evaluated and it was time to make a decision. He felt the recommendation was thoughtful, considered and based on experience and facts. He had not heard any councilors indicate a preference for moving forward with only a police station and he did not think a bond measure would fail on the basis of some difference in amount; it was the responsibility of the council to make that measure as attractive to voters as possible. He intended to support the motion. Mr. Zelenka agreed with using the current City Hall site and noted that the City also owned the property across the street, which should be incorporated in the planning process. He was also agreeable to an MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 5 Work Session incremental approach and a $100 million bond, in addition to the $40 million in reserve, would achieve much of the council's goal for a facility. He also wanted the patrol facility and City Hall to be an integrated project. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the motion, as it would result in prematurely eliminating the County-owned site. She said the County had initiatives for which it wanted the City's support and the City could therefore rely on the County's cooperation. In terms of consolidation, she thought a $100 million bond, $50 million in urban renewal funds and $40 million in reserves could complete the entire project. Mr. Zelenka said his first choice was the butterfly lot, but there were too many problems with the site, including unwilling sellers of adjacent parcels. He said the County might sell the lot but would expect a new parking facility to be built at a cost of $12 million in addition to the $2 million purchase price, which was too expensive. Mr. Clark supported the current City Hall site but would vote against the motion because he felt that establishing stable funding for the transportation system was a priority and the council needed to make more progress on that before initiating a new city hall project. He said the County was facing difficult financial choices and would likely ask the City to take up the slack in some services; moving precipitously on the City Hall project could remove some options from the table. He said that downtown redevelopment was still in the planning stage and a clearer vision of downtown was needed before making a decision on a new city hall. Mr. Pryor stated that he was equally passionate about transportation system funding but thought that could move forward concurrently with a new city hall project. He would not support a significant public financial obligation until the council had a better handle on transportation funding, but that did not mean the City Hall project had to be halted. He noted that even if the County was willing to sell the butterfly lot, acquisition of privately owned parcels necessary to complete the site was uncertain and he did not want to see the council involved in another condemnation action. Mr. Clark said there was still uncertainty about other government-owned buildings in downtown and he felt the council was moving too quickly. Ms. Taylor commented that the current City Hall site was a good location, but not the only land the City owned, such as the former Sears site. She was not certain the public was ready to support a large expenditure. Mr. Zelenka said the participants in the public process represented a broad spectrum of the community and voting supported as first choices the current City Hall site and the butterfly lot, with the Sears site and ShawMed site as second choices. He did not want to consider either of the second choices because they were included in the downtown redevelopment plan. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi- tion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to approve the development of a master plan for a wholly or incrementally consolidated con- cept on one site. Ms. Bettman asserted that from the beginning there was discussion of consolidating City services in one facility and she believed that an incremental approach should not be taken, as she feared it would be too MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 6 Work Session expensive and full consolidation would never happen. She was staunchly against the motion because it appeared to support an incremental approach. Mr. Cohen explained that the motion would allow design solutions that examined both an incremental and whole consolidation approach and both options were predicated on one bond measure; there was no assumption for more than one bond measure. He said that was based on the initial position statement to consolidate City services to the greatest extent practical. Ms. Bettman asked how much it would cost to explore the incremental option. Mr. Cohen said the expanded concept design would provide the council with different incremental configurations. Ms. Bettman said consolidating City services incrementally would remove a significant argument in favor of the bond measure. Mr. Pryor said the council was deciding to develop a plan, not adopt a final direction on the new city hall complex and the information provided by the plan would help inform future decisions. He understood Ms. Bettman's point regarding consolidation of City services in one building and still supported that concept, but wanted additional information before deciding whether or not it was appropriate for all services to be located in City Hall. Mayor Piercy said the council's previous discussion included whether there would be space available for the Municipal Court in the former federal courthouse building. Ms. Ortiz used the example of Bethel's construction of a new school to illustrate that an incremental approach could be successful. She felt that an incremental approach could help identify which services would best fit in the new City hall complex. Mr. Zelenka also favored consolidation of all services, but it was too expensive and it was clear the public was not willing to pay for full consolidation; a backup plan was to take a more cost-conscious approach, including considering the former federal courthouse building as a location for Municipal Court and continuing to use the library and Atrium Building for City offices. He felt the public would support an approach that tried to achieve as much consolidation as possible with a lower price tag. Mr. Clark stated he was willing to look at options for consolidation and would support the motion. Ms. Bettman said there had been considerable early work on consolidation of City services in the downtown area based on an assumption of full consolidation. She pointed out that a previous ballot measure for a police station had failed. Ms. Taylor asked what approach was proposed for incremental consolidation. Mr. Cohen said the outcomes of the planning process were not predetermined and the team would be sensitive to feedback on project costs. He said that the process would offer the council consolidation choices. Ms. Taylor asked if the City would continue to pay rent for some services. Mr. Cohen replied that would depend on which options the council chose. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with Phase 3B of the Implementation Plan Phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan and request on a Supplemental budget an appropriation of $789,000 from the Facility Reserve. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the cost of Phase 3B was $1,249,000. She asked what the cost to-date was. Mr. Penwell said the cost was slightly over $2 million to-date. Ms. Bettman noted that one of the technical tasks in Phase 3B was police patrol facility planning. She said now that the council had decided to use the current City Hall site, she did not believe any option other than using the site across the street, which was the plan all along, would be considered. She said there had been three ballot measures on a police facility and did not understand why it would cost $126,000 to do more planning. Mr. Penwell said that previous planning was for a fully consolidated police facility that included all of the Police Department and planning would now look as just the patrol facility as all other police functions would be in the new city hall. He said the other planning had been used as the basis for planning to date. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the motion because she was not in favor of the direction the process was going. Mr. Clark said he would support the motion as the majority of the council chose the current City Hall site and a majority of funding would come from funds saved to plan for and building a new city hall. Mr. Zelenka said he could support having a patrol facility located adjacent to the new city hall and hoped the planning process would be in that direction. Ms. Solomon commented that the council agreed that having a patrol facility in City Hall was not the best use of valuable property in downtown and she hoped that decision would not be reversed. Mr. Penwell said the planning costs included an analysis of up to three sites for a patrol facility, including a separate facility on a contiguous site if the council wished. Mayor Piercy commented that the funds spent to date were in response to a vigorous council discussion about the need to engage the public fully over the entire process, as well as fully engage the council in every facet of the planning. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 8 Work Session