Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 10, 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 25, 2007, Work Session, July 9, 2007, City Council Meeting, July 18, 2007, Work Session, and August 8, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.June 25, 2007, Work Session B.July 9, 2007, City Council Meeting C.July 18, 2007, Work Session D.August 8, 2007, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070910\S0709102A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 25, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy announced that the item regarding the application of eminent domain to properties in the south hills scheduled for later in the evening had been removed from the agenda but would be rescheduled on July 9, 2007. She thought more time was needed to analyze the ordinance. Mayor Piercy thanked those participating in the recent Willamette River clean-up. Mayor Piercy announced a Mayor’s One-on-One at Jerry’s Home Improvement Center the following day, at which Ms. Solomon would be in attendance. Mayor Piercy announced the first West Broadway Advisory Committee meeting on Wednesday, June 27. Mr. Zelenka arrived at the meeting. Mr. Pryor reported that the West Eugene Collaborative had divided into two subcommittees, one focused on the Lane Transit District study of the West Eugene transportation corridor and another to talk about broader transportation issues. He had high hopes for the process. The subcommittees were currently talking about their interface with the elected officials. Ms. Taylor asked if the City would cease the Clean Water Act violations pointed out by the RiverWatch Group. Mr. Zelenka asked what violations she was referring to. Ms. Taylor said she was referring to the violations that generated the lawsuit. Ms. Taylor said the Planning Commission commented on plan amendments for the Urban Renewal Agency Plan but the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the item did not say what those comments were. Ms. Taylor wanted to know what the City would have to pay for the Golden Gardens property. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor referred to the Crest Drive context-sensitive design open house and said it was very well- attended. She was unsure the residents would be happy with the eventual outcome, and noted their hopes for more flexibility. Ms. Taylor said the Old Pad Tavern was located directly adjacent to some houses, and the smoking deck of the establishment bothered residents of the neighborhood. She suggested the code be changed if the situation was found to be legal. She said that residents also heard noise from the tavern late at night. She did not think the residents would be satisfied by mediation. Ms. Taylor said that people parking at the Farmers Market received tickets early in the morning and in one case, when they still had time on the meter. She asked why that was the case. Ms. Taylor noted her attendance at the recent International Making Cities Livable Conference. She said the importance of public spaces was discussed in several venues, and farmers markets were frequently mentioned as important. th Ms. Bettman said she also received a ticket in the 5 Street Public Market area when she still had time left on the meter. She said that practice must cease. She requested more information about what had been done to make sure the Parking Section did not continue the practice. Mr. Poling said the Police Commission held a joint meeting with the Civilian Review Board, which he termed worthwhile. Mr. Poling announced an upcoming Use of Force/Taser Policy Committee public forum on June 28. Mr. Poling spoke to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) settlement with the RiverWatch Group, saying the commission continued to believe it was operating within federal and state guidelines. The settlement was a means to settle the suit at a lower cost to ratepayers. The settlement included a payment to the Long Tom Watershed Council for a restoration project, so some good was coming from the lawsuit. He noted that the MWMC’s 20-year master plan addressed the problems that could occur in the future. He pointed out that lawsuit, when initially brought to the council’s attention, was filed by someone who did not even live in Lane County or have a local partner, and the allegations were merely that, allegations. Mr. Poling said the MWMC was very busy and working to get some important projects started. The commission voted to hold a public hearing on July 19 at the Springfield Library Meeting Room regarding the design/build construction approach to one upcoming project Mr. Poling commended the turnout for Water Safety Day on June 23. Mr. Poling said he received an e-mail from Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki and the Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT), which stated that Lane Transit District (LTD) had indicated to the group that the City only th gave LTD direction to study transportation issues in the West 11 Avenue corridor. He asked how that could be cleared up. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated he would follow up with LTD and provide the council with a memorandum as he also recalled that the council had discussed a broader corridor style study. Ms. Solomon agreed there was confusion as to what was to be studied by LTD. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon recognized the Oregon State University baseball team for its recent College World Series victory and said that she, along with 200 other Beaver fans, had welcomed the team home earlier that afternoon. Ms. Solomon noted the upcoming One-on-One event in her ward on June 26 and invited residents to attend. Ms. Solomon reported the Active Bethel Citizens neighborhood organization was being reactivated and would meet on June 27 at Petersen Barn. City Manager Taylor noted the upcoming countdown to the 2008 Olympic Trials at Fifth Street Public Market on June 30 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Clark said he attended the recent Human Rights Commission (HRC) meeting and the commission welcomed Mary Otten as its newest commissioner. The chair of the Police Commission requested the HRC’s assistance in encouraging public input at the upcoming public forum. He said that some Police Commission members had felt somewhat insulted by the remarks of Human Rights Commissioners and were considering their options. Staff was working to mitigate the conflict. He anticipated further discussion. Mr. Clark said the HRC wished to convey its desire to the council that the City establish a homeless facility that was non-religious in nature. He indicated he was not sure he agreed with that position. Mr. Clark expressed appreciation to Mayor Piercy for her remarks at the recent river clean-up. He had enjoyed the time he spent in a boat with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Commissioner John Brown, and was astonished by the things pulled out of the river. There were dozens of campsites along the river. He asked if the City’s illegal camping ordinance was enforced on a complaint basis or if regular enforcement occurred. City Manager Taylor indicated enforcement was both complaint-based and occurred through active enforcement as the City regularly addressed illegal camping on the riverfront. The City responded to complaints working with a social service network to help find homeless people better places to live. Mr. Clark said he had spoken to Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken about the subject of illegal camping and its impact on the river, and they had discussed the potential of working cooperatively. He indicated he would request a work session on the issue. Mr. Clark thanked staff for its work on Water Safety Day. He said it was a great event. Mr. Zelenka said the MWMC settlement was fortunate because it cut the City’s losses, but unfortunate in another way in that it rewarded such lawsuits. He clarified, for the benefit of the public, there were no outflows going to Amazon Creek from the MWMC system as had been erroneously stated in some arenas, and suggested that was a reason the plaintiffs were ready to settle. Mr. Zelenka reported on a recent event of discrimination against a local African American Eugene family. He said it was unfortunate the community still contained such ignorant people and he wanted to make it clear it should not be tolerated in the community. He said it highlighted the importance of the council’s goal related to race. He hoped the council joined him in condemning that action. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Zelenka for his remarks. Ms. Ortiz commended the Oregon State University baseball team for its College World Series victory. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she had listened to “Hip Hop Hope” and thanked Craig Smith and his staff for their work with the City. Ms. Ortiz said she also heard about the joint meeting between the HRC and Police Commission through her role as the council liaison to the Police Commission. She encouraged staff to establish a “boot camp” or orientation for newly appointed board and commission members that touched on their roles and the legalities of their position. She said it was not okay to be disrespectful. Ms. Ortiz reported that she had attended the recent Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County awards dinner, and the Country Fair had received the organization’s Destination Award. Ms. Taylor continued her report on the International Making Cities Livable Conference, saying former Portland Mayor Vera Katz and current Portland Mayor Tom Potter received recognition for the transporta- tion system and open space downtown. Oregon Representative Earl Blumenthauer received recognition for his work on climate change. She noted that mixed uses in public spaces and accessibility by all income groups and ages to such spaces were also a topic of discussion. An emphasis was placed by participants on restoration and rehabilitation of space. Other discussion topics included the importance of local foods sources as well as keeping farm lands near cities and open spaces in downtown. 2. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal – Update on Homeless Initiative City Manager Taylor introduced the item, noting it was a continuing council goal for which much had been accomplished. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones and Community Development Director Richie Weinman were present for the item. Mr. Weinman requested approval of the proposed action plan. He said that the City had commenced with Phase 2 of its current plan. He spoke to the past year’s accomplishments, noting the Board of County Commission’s approval of the “Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness,” but said without funding, the goals were hollow. There were many potential sources for funding, and staff had worked hard to get funding from the State. The bill that would provide funding had failed to garner enough support to pass earlier that day but he anticipated it would be reintroduced. Mr. Weinman also spoke of the February 2007 Project Homeless Connect, which served more than 1,000 people and produced both long- and short-term benefits in the form of housing vouchers, LTD passes, and renewed connections between those who could be served and those who served them, such as homeless veterans and the Veterans Administration. Mr. Weinman emphasized the significance of the prevention funding provided by the City of Eugene, which in some cases was life-altering by ensuring that people did not become homeless. Mr. Weinman noted three next steps: 1) completion of the work of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, 2) planning for the 2008 Project Homeless Connect, to occur on February 7, 2008; and 3) monitoring the value of the City’s special budget allocations. He invited questions. Mayor Piercy said a significant benefit of Project Homeless Connect was the way it let the service providers know how they interfaced, a benefit that endured past the event. She said there was more work to be done, but she thought the council needed to acknowledge the effort that had been made. Mayor Piercy referred to page 9 of the AIS and the reference to the camping program, and suggested that there were not many new camping spaces. Mr. Weinman agreed. He said that different churches and MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 4 Work Session businesses continued to provide spaces, but public spaces were being lost for a variety of reasons. It was both critical and challenging to replace those spaces. He termed the spaces a community “safety valve.” Ms. Ortiz commended the membership of the blue ribbon committee. She was glad to hear the Project Homeless Connect event would reoccur. Ms. Ortiz spoke to the HRC request that the City consider establishing a non-religious shelter. She thought that would be a nice thing to do but feared the cost would be prohibitive. She thought the City could attain related goals through its partnerships with nonprofit providers. Mr. Pryor thanked Mr. Weinman and City staff for the hard work they had done. He emphasized the importance of partnerships to the Human Services Commission, of which he was a member. He thought the work being done by Mr. Weinman and Pearl Wolfe of Lane County was succeeding because of that partnership and was pleased to see how well the two jurisdictions were working together. Mr. Pryor thought the one-night census of the homeless population was very valuable and suggested that the City keep that up as an ongoing benchmark. It helped to keep a focus on the real issues. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the homeless goal action plan, which in- cludes Project Homeless Connect, assisting the “Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Home- lessness and Housing Programs” to develop recommendations, and continuing community education related to housing and homelessness issues. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. WORK SESSION: Enhancing Metro Area Fire and Emergency Medical Services City Manager Taylor introduced Fire and Emergency Medical Services Chief Randy Groves, who was present to discuss a concept that would enhance the community’s safety within existing resources. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the recent loss of nine fire fighters in Charleston, South Carolina, one of the largest single-incident losses. She called for a moment of silence to honor their memory. Chief Groves thanked Mayor Piercy for her remarks. Chief Groves reviewed a staff proposal regarding the “3-Battalion Concept,” which he proposed to implement in company with the Springfield Fire Department. The concept built upon the existing aid relationship between the two cities by expanding automatic aid throughout the community. Beginning July 2, the two cities would respond to the same number of calls but with systems that were virtually identical. He emphasized that the two departments would not be subsidizing one another. He recommended the council approve the concept. Ms. Bettman believed that the agenda topic involved a merger of services and that issue was a council policy issue. She asked if the two departments spent similar amounts on equipment and capital investments. Chief Groves said each jurisdiction was invested in its own infrastructure; Eugene spent more because it was a larger agency. The department covered a service area of about 162,000 in population; Springfield’s department covered an area of between 50,000 and 60,000. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman could not imagine how there could not be a cross-subsidy. She asked about per capita expenditures and how they compared. She questioned what capital investment was being made and did not think that the outlay of equipment and infrastructure could be equitable between the two agencies. She asked if the City of Eugene would be subsidizing Springfield’s response to the Peace Health’s River Bend campus. Ms. Bettman considered the issue a budget and policy issue, and requested figures that demon- strated undeniably that there was no cross-subsidy. Ms. Bettman said her concerns were exacerbated by the fact that Springfield was now able to expand its urban growth boundary without Eugene’s permission. Chief Groves said Eugene responded to more calls for service than Springfield with a larger infrastructure. In regard to the River Bend campus, he noted the two cities had commenced work on the initiative long before Peace Health planned to relocate from Eugene to Springfield. He said in terms of moving back and forth, the two departments could do that now under its mutual aid agreement, but in reality, resources flow with the call load; given Eugene’s larger call load, some might say the shift in resources was the other way. He thought it balanced out over time, but agreed to attempt to provide those numbers. City Manager Taylor said that being able to train together had been an important step, and having the same terminology for apparatus and the same standards of coverage was very important. If the City expanded to a new station, it would use the standards of cover to make that decision. Springfield was using the same methodology in regard to its standards of cover. Over time, he thought staff could share information about response times and the fiscal impact of the initiative. Ms. Ortiz said she had some concerns about the cost to Eugene, but she had asked different medics at Sacred Heart about the issue, and they provided positive feedback, particularly with regard to training. She thought that it was a good idea for the two cities to work together, as it would make the training more streamlined and ensure that training was continuous. She shared Ms. Bettman’s concern about Springfield’s choice to make its own decisions about its urban growth boundary and the impact that might have on Eugene, and hoped the chief took the council’s remarks to heart. She said the council’s constituency was the city of Eugene. Mr. Pryor said he loved the concept presented by Chief Groves because if someone was in a house burning up they would not be thinking about the jurisdiction that responded. He hoped that if someone in Eugene could be saved by a Springfield response that would occur. He trusted staff to ensure that contributions did not get “too lop-sided.” He thought the automatic aid agreement demonstrated cooperation had worked. He also agreed as to the importance of shared training. He pointed out the two agencies were still operating independently with individual budgets so he did not characterize it as a merger, which implied shared governance. Mr. Pryor said the message the chief should be hearing was the need for Eugene to spend its money wisely, as well as that Eugene was not an island. He thought it important that Eugene recognized it was part of a larger community, and it was a good thing to partner with other agencies accountably. He appreciated that the two chiefs were working to coordinate services so that nobody had to die. Mr. Clark agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor and thought there was great wisdom in the proposal. He said that given Springfield’s expanding tax base, Eugene might be able to take advantage of investments that community made in fire and emergency medical services response. He appreciated the chief’s willingness to work with Springfield and to increase cooperation so that people on both sides of I-5 were safer. He suggested that the concept was more efficient and likely to save money for both jurisdictions. Mr. Zelenka also liked the concept. He said that if someone’s life was in danger, it was important to have the fastest, best response possible, no matter where one lived. However, he wanted more information on the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 6 Work Session cross-subsidization question raised by Ms. Bettman. He was concerned about Springfield’s ability to pay its bills because of all the new debt he anticipated form the infrastructure it would be required to build. Mr. Zelenka asked the difference between mutual aid and the 3-Battalion concept. Chief Groves said that mutual aid was an individual request for assistance generated by an incident commander. It did not automatically happen, and that automatic response was the essence of the concept; when a call for assistance was received, the closest unit would respond. As holes began to develop in coverage because of multiple calls for service or a large, site-specific incident, the backfill began to occur, so that the web of coverage would be thinner, but there would be no holes. It took the larger amount of resources to give the two communities more depth in the emergency response. Mr. Zelenka clarified that the two cities had a joint dispatch function. He determined from Chief Groves that it was possible Springfield firefighters could be responding to calls in Eugene to cover stations that were in the process of responding to an earlier call. If that depleted the response, the departments could go to the mutual aid approach, which called out departments of surrounding jurisdictions. He termed if a very organized process that could be tracked by reference to the standards of coverage. Ms. Taylor thought cooperation was a good thing but shared Ms. Bettman’s concerns about the expansion of the Springfield UGB and the need to respond to the Peace Health campus, and further noted the recent wild fires in California, which demonstrated that building outside the city could lead to fires. She suggested that rather than build its tax base through boundary expansions, Springfield was doing too much “tax-free” staff, and observed that the Springfield council discussed shortening library hours. Ms. Taylor shared Ms. Bettman’s interest in more financial information. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor’s remarks. He said that the topic of training was particularly important. He said that many of the incidents that occurred in the Harlow area could be more quickly reached by Springfield emergency services than by Eugene, and he agreed that people calling for help did not care who responded. People would only see the fire protection they paid for with their tax dollars. He trusted staff to track the City’s expenditures and thanked Chief Groves and Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy for their work on the issue. He thought the concept was a good thing. Chief Groves gave credit to his staff and the staff of Chief Murphy for their work on the concept. Mayor Piercy thought the council was expressing legitimate support for the concept as well as legitimate concern that Eugene not bear too much of the cost. She agreed that the concept was important and a good thing but also agreed that the questions asked about the cost needed to be answered. She also thought the points raised by Ms. Bettman about the UGB and the Peace Health campus were legitimate, particularly as they related to the expenditure of Eugene tax dollars. She believed the citizens expected the City Council to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions when possible while still looking to the bottom line. Ms. Bettman continued to maintain that the concept represented a merger of services and asked if an Intergovernmental Agreement would be signed. City Manager Taylor said no. He said the concept was not a merger of services as there would still be two separate budgets and two separate departments with a common and rational way of responding to emergencies in keeping with past practice. Ms. Bettman termed City Manager Taylor’s remarks “semantics” and repeated that the concept was a merger of services. She recommended that the concept be placed on the ballot for a vote. The citizens and council had no control over the decisions made by Springfield, and if that community failed to keep up with its investments, Eugene would have to take on that responsibility. She suggested the first thing staff should have done was to look at the numbers. Ms. Bettman perceived the concept as a major policy decision and she opposed its implemen- MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 7 Work Session tation without further discussion. She maintained Eugene ratepayers subsidized wastewater infrastructure rates for Springfield, and the more Springfield grew, the more it cost Eugene. Ms. Ortiz reiterated her support for the concept. However, she was unsure that the Eugene Emergency Medical Services goals were the same as Springfield’s goals. She recalled the Broadway tree-cutting incident in 1997 where Eugene could not speak to the actions of other responding departments, and there was no accountability in a riot situation. She asserted that those departments had their own cultures and belief systems, and while she was sure they were similar, she as concerned. Chief Groves said that in his experience, the Springfield department was a professional department with high standards. He reiterated that no money was changing hands, and without experience it was difficult to gauge the impact. He said under the current arrangement, units were moving back and forth across jurisdictional boundaries, but the incentive got the two departments on the same operating page so that incident commanders know what they were getting in emergency situations. Ms. Ortiz commended the work of the fire and police departments. Mr. Zelenka thought the concept would result in an increase in services for both communities. It should also save more lives. However, it “always mattered who pays.” He agreed that it was not a service merger, and questioned why that was not proposed. Chief Groves said that Tualatin, for example, was a fire district that served multiple communities, and that was always a possibility. What was being proposed for Eugene and Springfield was similar to the Gresham/Portland model, which enhanced automatic aid parameters. City Manager Taylor said that some fire districts were formed to get around the impacts of Ballot Measure 47/50. Historically, the metropolitan area had questioned the wisdom of creating such single purpose governments and has looked to other approaches that left the general government structure in place. The concept was intended to improve current operating and mutual aid structures. Mr. Zelenka asked how Springfield intended to cover the Peace Health River Bend campus, and what was expected of Eugene. Chief Groves said that Eugene was part of that response under its current automatic aid agreement. He pointed out the River Bend campus was a regional facility that benefited Eugene citizens as well as Springfield citizens. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Chief Groves said Springfield had two ladder trucks to fight high-rise fires, very similar in type to what Eugene owned. Those were located at the Gateway station and th the station at Main and 66 streets. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Chief Groves said if Springfield was unable to respond, Eugene would look to its other automatic and mutual aid agreements for coverage. There were times when the closest station was tied up, but one of the attributes of the system was it allowed units to be moved up to fill gaps in coverage. Mr. Poling asked how much input the rank and file had into the concept. Chief Groves said that staff had a fair amount of input into the concept through the battalion and line chiefs, particularly in the area of training. Mr. Poling perceived no major policy changes; he perceived the concept as “mutual aid plus.” Ms. Bettman saw a trend toward regionalizing government and putting services in the hands of bodies that were not accountable in the same way as the elected officials. She cited the MWMC and Public Safety MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Coordinating Council as examples of her concern. She did not think Springfield adequately funded its services and asserted that the Springfield municipality operated on levies. Ms. Bettman recalled that the City Council had considered the issue of special fire districts and decided against them because it did not think they would be accountable. She suggested the proposal was an “end run” around that decision. Ms. Bettman agreed Eugene was part of a larger community but the council was elected to represent Eugene residents, not Springfield residents, and Eugene residents did not want to subsidize Springfield. She averred that Springfield planned a massive UGB expansion and she did not want to subsidize that cost. Mr. Clark asked if staff envisioned Springfield would spend more time on calls in Eugene. Chief Groves believed the response would equal out over time; currently, Springfield responded more into Eugene than Eugene to Springfield because of the location of the Springfield Gateway station. Mr. Clark thought that the concept had the effect of making Mr. Poling’s ward safer, and Springfield was subsidizing that. Mr. Clark expressed appreciation to Chief Groves for his work and for involving line staff. City Manager Taylor indicated that staff would provide written responses to the council’s questions as a council assignment. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 9, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Joyce Berman , 2440 Charnelton Street, wished to address the proposed exceptions to the portions of the code that govern “tailgating” activities at University of Oregon home games at Autzen Stadium. She stated that along with the Boy Scouts, the Masonic Lodge, the BMX track, and the Elks Club, the Willamette Institute for Science and Technology (WISTEC), also known as the Science Factory, depended on parking revenue received on game days to fund its services. She explained that 27 percent of the Science Factory budget had been raised from game day activities in 2006. She averred that the “parkers” were well-behaved and the lot had been well monitored. She believed the most equitable solution to concerns about enforcement of the prohibition on public drinking would to be level the playing field by expanding the code exemption currently enjoyed solely by the stadium to include the surrounding non-profits who partner with the University to provide game day parking. She said the increased cost of complying with a possible permitting or licensing requirement caused the Science Factory grave concern as it would have a negative effect on an “already tenuous bottom line.” She underscored that the income brought in by parking was immediately used to provide direct services to the community’s families and children. She reiterated that there had been no incidents involving alcohol in the Science Factory lot, adding that they would continue to educate people about responsible alcohol use in their game day activities. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, said he was not a member of the Lane County Home Builders Association. He believed that land developers and builders would have benefited had the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) been constructed as land values would have increased. He thought the WEP would have also benefited the people who live in Veneta but commute to Eugene. He averred that young families living at the edge of the City would spend more time in their cars instead of more time with their children. He commented that more parking garages in the downtown area also enabled people to live at the edge of the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting Joe Collins , PO Box 24411, Eugene, reiterated his concerns regarding alleged interactions with his neighbor and with the Eugene Police Department. He felt he was not being listened to. th Samantha Chirillo , 157 East 27 Avenue, Apt. 3, stated that she was a graduate student at the University of Oregon with a Masters Degree in biology, working on a degree in Public Policy. She explained that she was co-director of Cascadia Citizen Advocates and was speaking on behalf of that group and the Climate Crisis Working Group. She presented letters from the groups in support of preservation of the Amazon Headwaters to the council. She acknowledged the cost of the land and the pressure from developers, but she did not believe there was an acceptable alternative. She averred that to allow development to go forward on the Beverly/Green properties would negate the City’s efforts on behalf of climate change and sustainability. She pointed out that the City had invested money in the lower Amazon Creek area and to develop the upper area would compromise previous work. She urged the council to “do the right thing” and preserve the Amazon Headwaters. James R. Seaberry , 1475 Green Acres Road, Space 126, asserted that there were “150 … endangered species” at his address that entered onto Green Acres Road several times daily. He said he had contacted Traffic Engineer Tom Larsen regarding his concerns. He hoped to place a caution sign for drivers approaching from the east on Green Acres Road toward Delta Highway. He felt visibility was “terrible” and the cars “coming off the hill” were going too fast. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, opined that the University of Oregon drinking district proposal was a “dangerous proposal” and an “intolerable request.” He asserted that this sort of thing needed a balanced discussion with a public hearing. He reiterated his opposition to the proposed basketball arena planned by the University of Oregon. He felt that MacArthur Court was adequate as a basketball arena. He suggested that the council take a “wait and see” stance before authorizing a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for their testimony. She extended a special thank you to Ms. Chirillo for “bringing up some of the most important reasons for saving the Amazon Headwaters.” Councilor Zelenka said during the earlier work session the council had approved a traffic calming plan in the Fairmount Neighborhood that would be very necessary when the arena was built. He underscored that his goal was to minimize the impacts of the arena and not to profit from it or support it. He stated that the arena was in the purview of the internal politics of the University of Oregon. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - April 11, 2007, Work Session - May 14, 2007, Work Session - May 14, 2007, City Council Meeting - May 29, 2007, City Council Meeting - June 13, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Police Auditor Cost of Living Adjustment Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of the minutes from the work session that was held on May 14, 2007. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman explained that she had pulled the May 14 minutes in order to gain clarification about a portion of the document. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of the min- utes from the May 14, 2007, work session passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Manufactured Dwelling Park Closures; and Amending Sections 2.1060 and 2.1086 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4948, an ordinance concerning manufactured dwelling park closures. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the title and the pro- posed ordinance to add a new section 2.1088 to the Eugene Code, 1971, to read: “No manufactured dwelling park owner may refuse tenancy on the basis of a manu- factured dwelling’s age or size if the same size or similar age as the prospective ten- ant’s dwelling. Manufactured dwellings are of similar age if they are constructed within 10 years of each other.” Councilor Bettman said she considered a prohibition on older homes to be a form of discrimination and not a quality issue. Councilor Solomon stated that she had served on the committee that reviewed the issue and helped to prepare the proposed ordinance language. She said the motion was not part of the recommendation and she believed the amendment would be detrimental to it. She felt some of the unintended consequences of the amendment could be that park owners could choose not to renew leases at all rather than be forced to accept something that could compromise the quality of the park. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Councilor Solomon affirmed that there were manufactured home owners serving on the committee. Councilor Ortiz noted that manufactured home parks were located in both her ward and in Councilor Solomon’s ward. She acknowledged that some of her constituents were concerned about whether they would continue to have the ability to stay in their homes. She said she would not support the amendment. She believed that there was good representation in crafting the proposed ordinance by mobile home residents and that there had been a lot of work done on the ordinance already. Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 5:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Mayor Piercy related that a request had been made regarding an amendment to allow appeals to go before the City Council. She said the ordinance included the option for an appeal to the Hearings Official. She reported that the City Attorney had advised against such an amendment as it would create a potential for a standard of deviations among similarly situated persons. Councilor Solomon recalled testimony given by Troy Brooks, owner of Songbrook Manufactured Housing Park, at the public hearing regarding the mobile home park that used to be located by the Ferry Street Bridge. He had pointed out that the mobile home park was now gone and a large hotel stood in its place, MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting greatly increasing the property tax contribution the property made to the City. She said this had brought home to her why someone would want to take a mobile home park and build something of more value on it. She averred that around the State, the pressure on the land within urban growth boundaries (UGBs) caused the value of the land to dramatically increase and people wanted to convert land such as the property by the bridge to something with a higher value. She stated that the City then benefited from such a change with an increase in revenue. She felt strongly that the committee did what it had been asked to do but she wanted to stress that the ordinance would not solve the problem, as the real problem was the lack of available land on which to build housing. Councilor Bettman called it a myth that the City benefited with the intensification of use of land. She asserted that the City did not benefit financially as it may receive more in taxes but it cost more money to meet the increased burden in services. Mayor Piercy said the real reason the ordinance was before the council was to create fairness and justice for the people who lived in the manufactured home parks. Councilor Zelenka supported the ordinance. He believed a mix of housing was needed in the community. He felt a mobile home park was one of the few “refuges” for people who had a low income. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. 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 Mayor Piercy stated that Councilor Poling had requested that no action be taken on the ordinance in his absence. She said Councilor Zelenka had an intended motion that would not enact the ordinance but would help to lay the groundwork for the next step and that Councilor Poling was not opposed to it. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to 1. Direct the City Manager to get an appraisal as soon as possible on each of the properties based on low, medium, and high levels of development density. As part of obtaining the appraisals, the City shall contract with whatever consultants are necessary to develop an opinion and supporting rationale as to the “highest and best use of the property” as that term is used by appraisers. 2. Schedule a work session as soon as possible after the completion of the appraisals and related information, where we will discuss the following topics: a. History and status of development and purchase proposals on both proper- ties (including citizen activities); b. More detailed eminent domain process and issues discussion (in Executive Session); and c. Potential sources of money for the purchase of the properties, especially funds other than the Parks Bonds 3. Bring back the ordinance only after the work session and with the following lan- guage changes: a. Delete Section 5 which calls for immediate effect; b. Add language that describes the importance of preserving the Amazon Headwaters for water quality purposes; and MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting c. Add language that describes the importance of preserving the land for plant and wildlife habitat and wildlife connectivity. 4. The sequence of items brought back to the council shall be the appraisal and the work session and the work session shall be informed by the appraisal, and then re- visiting the revised ordinance. 5. After the City has contracted with the appraiser and other consultants and devel- oped a timeline for completion of the appraisals and related documents, the City Manager shall report back to the council as to when the work session can be sched- uled. Councilor Bettman asked how long the appraisal was anticipated to take. City Manager Taylor estimated that it would take three months. He asked Parks and Open Space Director, Johnny Medlin, to elaborate. Mr. Medlin said they needed to evaluate what supporting information would have to be developed according to the motion that would be provided to the appraiser. He was uncertain what that information would be. Councilor Bettman asked why Councilor Zelenka had used the language referring to “the highest and best use of the property,” which she asserted would be based on the developers’ expectation of how they could develop the properties to make a profit. Councilor Zelenka replied that this was not his intent. He asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to speak to this. Mr. Klein explained that an appraiser was required to evaluate a property according to its highest and best use. He stressed that this did not mean what the developer meant by highest and best use. He said the purpose of contracting with the consultants was for the City to obtain all of the information about the geo- technical and hydrological aspects of the property in order to bolster the City’s case if the eminent domain taking went to trial. He stressed that this information would create the definition of the highest and best use and then the appraiser could use it to determine the value of the property. Councilor Bettman found the language to be confusing given that earlier in the motion it spoke to low, medium, and high levels of development density. She suggested that the language be modified so that it said “based on a range of development density.” Councilor Zelenka responded that this would mean low, medium, and high development density. He said the second part of the sentence referred to the offer that the City would need to make on the properties and the need for expert witnesses to inform the City what the best offer would be. Councilor Bettman took issue with the looseness of the time frame. She averred that the City had negotiated with the developers before and “things do not go anywhere because they do not have to go anywhere” by a date certain. She said in order to support it she wanted to see a date, such as within a month after the council break. Councilor Zelenka said it was difficult to know how long the steps that were needed would take. He had confidence that the City Manager would move forward expeditiously. He was not worried that the process would “drag on forever.” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to indicate that the revised ordinance should come back before the City Council at a work session in the beginning of October. Councilor Bettman asserted that if there was a deadline the negotiations would “move a little faster.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka said he would take it as a friendly amendment to say that the work session would occur in October. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add (d) under (2) of the motion that would state that the council would consider and discuss the revised ordinance language at the first work session in October. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amend- ment. Councilor Solomon wished to honor Councilor Poling’s request that the council not take action at the present meeting. She said in hearing the present discussion it was clear that the council was moving toward eminent domain proceedings. She indicated she would not support the motion. Councilor Clark said he had supported the motion until it became more time specific. He indicated that out of respect for Councilor Poling he would also refrain from supporting it. He wanted to know the amount of money spent by the current owners of the properties trying to negotiate the requirements the City placed on them as they tried to develop the properties, which the City indicated they could do. Councilor Clark asserted that the motion spoke from the City’s point of view, which was that the land was zoned R-1, residential. He said the Comprehensive Plan indicated that the land was intended for housing. He felt they were analyzing the values of the land for housing that low, medium, and high density would allow. He averred that this would give the City accurate information that would allow it to negotiate in good faith and with willing sellers. Mayor Piercy understood Councilor Poling’s position to be that he opposed moving the ordinance itself forward. She believed the present motion would not do so. Councilor Pryor said the notion of setting a date certain to bring back an eminent domain vote gave him “pause” because he believed it would “short circuit” having the information to study and understand prior to moving into eminent domain. He asked Councilor Zelenka if he was proposing to have a date certain for an issue of condemnation to be brought to the council or was he still working on garnering all of the informa- tion. He said if the latter was true he could still support the motion. Councilor Zelenka stated his intent was to hold a work session to discuss ordinance language in advance of action on it. Councilor Pryor indicated his willingness to support the motion based on Councilor Zelenka’s response to his question. He requested a legal opinion of the allowability of the purchase within the specifics of what the Parks and Open Space Bond language said the bond would and would not pay for. He also wished to know what would happen if it was found to be allowable and it went to court and was then overturned. He wanted to know what the personal liability of the councilors was in that situation. He understood, at this point, that the councilors could be held personally liable for “paying the money back.” Councilor Taylor was not satisfied with saying the council would discuss the language in October. She averred that the council should have passed the ordinance already. She felt that Councilor Bettman’s friendly amendment included a deadline for action. She expressed concern that without a deadline the action could be deferred “forever.” Councilor Bettman clarified that her intent was to have the revised ordinance language for review at a work session in October. She said it would give time to conduct due diligence work that “others” thought had not been done or “for some reason” was thought to be needed prior to taking action on the ordinance. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting asserted that typically the City undertook its due diligence work after an ordinance for eminent domain had been passed. Councilor Bettman asked how much money was in the stormwater acquisition fund. Public Works Department Executive Director Kurt Corey replied that he would find out for her. Councilor Bettman requested a memorandum with information on the cost of the additional acreage the City was negotiating to purchase for Golden Gardens Park. Councilor Bettman said the City had received a phone call from someone who felt the City should only pay the amount listed on the tax rolls for the Beverly-Green properties. She related that the person made the point that if the property was worth the millions that the developers might want for it, the developers should already be paying taxes on that amount. She thought this was a “good point.” Councilor Zelenka understood his motion to be in line with Councilor Poling’s wishes regarding any action taken. Councilor Ortiz supported Councilor Zelenka’s motion. She did not think the action should be taken lightly. She declared that it warranted more time. Councilor Clark wished to address a “mischaracterization” of Councilor Bettman’s. He hoped the council would address this in a future council process session. He related that Councilor Bettman had asserted that people who oppose acquiring the property hoped the process would be open ended. He felt that assumed that people who wished to have an open ended process were opposed to the acquisition. He said this was not true. Councilor Clark stated that if language for an ordinance was to be considered at a future work session that would move the City toward taking eminent domain he wished to have language prepared that would set aside $3 million for a Santa Clara community park. Councilor Bettman reiterated her question on what the legal standard for the worth of a property was. She thought there needed to be reconciliation in terms of how the cost of the property would “end up.” Councilor Taylor asked how long it had taken in the past for the City to exercise eminent domain. She also wondered how long it would take for the City to exercise eminent domain over the property near Madison Middle School. She said that in the past it seemed to her that the council “just voted for it and it happened.” Mr. Klein responded that he would provide information on past eminent domain takings. City Manager Taylor agreed that this would be useful information. He pointed out, however, that the City was working within the new legal framework dictated by Ballot Measure 39. Councilor Zelenka said this was an important point. He stated that it took more upfront work now than it did before so that the initial offer was an appropriate offer and the City would not be assessed court costs. City Manager Taylor added that there might also be budget amendments and other things to authorize the source of funds. Mayor Piercy supported the motion. She felt the information was necessary and that it was good to continue trying to work toward having willing sellers. She remained committed, should the sellers not be willing, to utilize the tool of eminent domain in order to preserve the Amazon Headwaters land. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall July 18, 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 convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). Mayor Piercy announced that Ms. Solomon would be slightly delayed. She presented the council with a plaque from a delegation of students visiting from Bahrain. 1. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Memorandums of Understanding City Manager pro tem Angel Jones provided an overview of the West Broadway redevelopment project to- date. She stressed that the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) being presented to the council were not final, binding agreements, but rather represented the initial step that would set the City on the path to refine plans for the West Broadway projects. Senior Development Analyst Denny Braud said that separate, but similar, MOUs had been drafted for Beam and KWG. He said the non-binding agreements were intended to establish understandings regarding timeliness and expectations to bring the development from a proposed concept to a future binding agreement. He said while no commitments were required from either party to the MOU, it did provide some assurance about timelines and expectations and that both parties were working in good faith towards a binding agreement. He noted that the MOUs were draft and could be modified by the Urban Renewal Agency (URA). He reviewed the content of the MOUs and emphasized that the URA was under no obligation to exercise purchase options on the West Broadway properties; however, it would make its best efforts to keep the options active. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a legal definition of “non-binding.” Mr. Braud replied that non-binding meant neither party could sue the other. Ms. Bettman asked if the final MOUs would be consistent with the drafts. She asked if the language could be changed. Mr. Braud said the developers had copies of the MOUs and could possibly propose language changes; any material changes would be brought back to the council. Ms. Bettman asked for assurance in the motion that material changes would return to the council for approval. She asked how recommendations from the West Broadway Advisory Committee would be MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 1 Work Session incorporated into the final binding documents. Mr. Braud said the committee would make its recommenda- tions to the council and the council would determine what went into the final agreement. Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the difference between the final agreement and the formal binding document. She cited language that suggested there would be more than one document. Mr. Braud said the final document would be the development or purchase and sale agreement, depending on what it was called, and the terms of that document would be approved and authorized by the council; it would be the only final document. Ms. Bettman asked if City Attorney Glenn Klein agreed with Mr. Braud. Mr. Klein said the development agreement would be the primary document identifying the roles and responsibilities of the parties, but there was the possibility that other documents, such as an escrow agreement, would be required to implement the formal agreement. He said that any associated documents would be referenced in the development agreement. Ms. Bettman pointed out that item No. 7 in the Beam draft MOU required the developer’s best efforts to cooperate with the URA and committee on a relocation plan for tenants and businesses impacted by the project. She hoped there would be a plan that held local businesses downtown harmless but the language did not appear to require that. Ms. Taylor asked why there was one proposed motion when there were two MOUs. Mr. Braud said that staff had provided one motion because the council had selected both of the developers and directed that an MOU for each be brought back. Mr. Klein added that the council could act separately on the MOUs. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:15 p.m. Ms. Taylor noted that the Beam draft MOU described a mix of uses that included hotel, cinema, and grocery and asked if Beam was considering any of the uses for its project. Mr. Braud said Beam was not proposing those uses and the intent of the language was to describe what could happen within the entire development area. Ms. Taylor asserted the language was inappropriate since it did not apply to Beam and should be eliminated. Regarding relocation, she asked if Beam could “work around” existing tenants in the Washburn Building, as that building would not be demolished. Mr. Braud said discussions with Beam indicated an interest in retaining the current tenants, although no details of the construction phase were yet developed. Ms. Taylor pointed out other instances of general language, such as a reference to option agreements on “several of the properties along West Broadway,” that should be specifically tailored to Beam’s actual project. She also pointed out that the URA had not hired the facilitator, as she did not recollect that the council had discussed it. Mr. Klein clarified that the term “urban renewal agency” in that context equated to the City and was used to identify the action as one taken by the URA. He said the council acted as the URA board and had provided direction to the City Manager to select a facilitator. Ms. Taylor commented that the council had not specified who or what kind of person should be hired as the facilitator. She asked if the KWG agreement would be more specific about relocation plans for existing businesses. She did not see how businesses could be held harmless if they had to give up their current locations. Mr. Braud replied that the URA directed the committee to work on a transition plan for businesses that would inform the final agreement. He said the intent of the MOUs was to avoid binding agreements on either side; requiring a specific commitment of KWG to enter into a relocation plan would be premature at this point. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if a business did not want to relocate. Mr. Braud said the City’s commitment was to assist all of the businesses that were affected as part of the project. Mr. Clark said he assumed that tenants would address with their landlords what could be done legally. He understood that the MOUs were non-binding and represented the URA’s expectations of the other parties. He said the MOU expected the developers to participate in good faith with the URA and the committee in the creation of a relocation plan but did not require the developers to assume any specific responsibility for relocation of businesses. Mr. Braud agreed with that statement. Mr. Zelenka observed that the MOUs were virtually the same with the exception of project elements related to properties and established the relationship between developers and the URA. He said that the recommen- dations from the committee would be incorporated into more detailed plans by the developers and those plans would form the basis of the development agreements, which would come before the council for approval. He listed the items the committee had been charged with addressing, including a reloca- tion/transition plan for existing businesses, and stated he did not recall a commitment by the council to hold harmless any businesses. He said that property owners would be fairly compensated, but renters were in a more precarious position; however, there had not been any discussion of an agreement with tenants and it was outside the purview of government to tell renters what to do once owners sold buildings. He said that was the reason the committee was asked to develop a transition plan. He asked what the next steps in the process were. Mr. Braud said the committee would continue to work on the items charged to it and was scheduled to finish that effort in August. He said other processes, such as the HUD Section 108 loan application and urban renewal plan amendment process, were underway. He said the council would review the committee recommendations in mid-September and provide direction to staff on negotiations and deal points for the final development agreements. Mayor Piercy asked if MOUs were binding unless specifically designated as non-binding. Mr. Klein stated it was not the title of the document, but rather the provisions of the document itself that determined whether it was binding. He said that agreement by all parties that the MOUs were non-binding should be explicitly stated in the provisions to ensure that interpretation by the courts. Ms. Bettman noted the MOU reference to affordable housing and asserted that affordable housing was very different than low-income housing and because it was explicitly stated as affordable housing that would appear to preclude low-income housing. Mr. Braud said it was a matter of terminology and the intent was to be clear that the project would include a low-income housing component consistent with the developers’ proposals. Ms. Bettman asked that the MOUs be amended to include both affordable and low-income housing. She would offer that as a friendly amendment when there was a motion on the table. She reviewed project activity to-date and the council’s action at various points in the process. She asked if any more public hearings were planned. Mr. Braud said there were additional opportunities for public involvement through the committee’s public workshops. Ms. Bettman hoped there would be additional public hearings as all of the previous hearings had transpired before there were specific development projects before the council. She acknowledged that the council had not specifically addressed relocation issues or plans, but did not think that holding businesses harmless should be taken off the table; the advisory committee should examine that issue and she hoped it would be a MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 3 Work Session high priority. Ms. Jones said that was an available option and it would be up to the committee to provide its advice on that matter. Ms. Bettman expressed alarm about the cooperation between KWG and Beam and asked what would happen if Beam dropped out because the conditions proposed by KWG were untenable. Mr. Braud said in that circumstance the council would need to revisit its decisions. Mr. Zelenka stated he was committed to an open and transparent public process on West Broadway redevelopment, including holding whatever public hearings were necessary to ensure the community was fully informed. He said that was the purpose of the previous public hearings and the advisory committee. He disagreed with Ms. Bettman regarding the council’s commitment to hold businesses harmless and clarified that the motion directed the committee to create a transition plan so the council could consider transition and relocation options and not leave the obligation entirely in the hands of developers. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the agency director to enter into non- binding MOUs with Beam and KWG for the redevelopment of West Broadway, consistent with the draft MOUs included in attachments B and C and that if there are any material changes to attachments B and C that the agency director bring back those material changes for agency review and approval. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to separate the motion and vote on the two MOUs separately. Ms. Taylor said she intended to vote for the Beam MOU, but not the KWG MOU and it was only fair that councilors be given a chance to vote separately on the MOUs. Mr. Clark noted that the council had already selected both developers so moving ahead with both MOUs would seem prudent. The vote to separate was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy broke the tie by voting n favor and the motion passed, 5:4. i Ms. Ortiz restated her motion as: “Move to direct the agency director to enter into a non- binding MOU with Beam for the redevelopment of West Broadway, consistent with the draft MOU included in attachment B and that if there are any material changes to attach- ment B that the agency director bring back those material changes for agency review and approval.” Ms. Bettman asked if the motion included her suggestion for a friendly amendment regarding low-income housing. Ms. Ortiz replied that she assumed that was a “given.” The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the agency director to enter into a non- binding MOU with KWG for the redevelopment of West Broadway, consistent with the draft MOU included in attachment C and that if there are any material changes to attach- ment C that the agency director bring back those material changes for agency review and approval. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated she would vote against the motion as she supported option 2 proposed by staff, which was Beam rehabilitating the Center Court and Washburn buildings and redeveloping the “Aster pit” site, including moving forward with the Kemper 106-unit housing project on the “Sears pit” site. She said that would have allowed citizen input on how best to redevelop the remainder of the downtown footprint. She did not think a range of options had been fully examined. Ms. Taylor said the Beam proposal was less expensive and could be done more quickly and then the City could determine if the housing at the Sears site, which could have been completed by now if the City had not halted the project, could stimulate other redevelopment that did not require City subsidies and cause less disruption to existing businesses. Mr. Poling said he initially favored KWG to be the sole developer of the project as he was not that impressed with the Beam proposal, but in the interests of moving West Broadway redevelopment forward he was willing to agree to both developers for the project. He supported the motion related to Beam and was not willing to scuttle the entire project just because it did not reflect his first choice. He wanted to move forward with redevelopment for the betterment of the City. Mr. Clark said he would support the motion. He was disappointed at the lack of a unified voice from the council. He said it was important to recognize that when the majority spoke it was the will of the body and that will was to move forward with both developers. He felt that the issues that were being revisited had already been decided. Mayor Piercy expressed her pleasure with the direction the City was moving and was supportive of both development proposals, which provided unique opportunities for a part of the community. Ms. Ortiz said that separating the MOUs was not negative and would allow more consideration of an immense commitment of public funds and assure that each step was thoughtfully deliberated. She was in favor of as much public involvement in the process as possible. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the number one issue on the recent City Hall survey was revitalization of downtown. He hoped the West Broadway redevelopment would help achieve that and understood and shared community concern about the cost and impact of the project, which was why it was important to proceed cautiously with a transparent process and public involvement. Ms. Bettman said she felt it was important to speak up when a mistake was being made and she regarded the project as a very large mistake because it had not been determined how the funds, which were intended to benefit low-income people, could be better spent. She felt the funds were being spent unwisely and would oppose it. She hoped the project would fall through and the council could return to option 2. Referring to Table 5 in Chapter 5 of the Urban Renewal Plan report, she said it was supposed to represent project activities and estimated costs. She formally requested that more details be provided for the project activities so she could understand what they meant and how they would be paid for. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the chart was staff's best estimate in March 2007 of the general nature of the development project and as yet no better information on the exact nature of the project was available. She emphasized that it was a plan and not a commitment to those specific activities and estimated costs. Ms. Taylor said she also hoped the project failed and thought the council would regret it if it went forward. She said that current businesses could be lost and possibly new ones would not succeed. She was opposed to destroying things that were doing well. She questioned whether public input to the West Broadway Advisory Committee would make a difference. Mr. Braud replied that it would be up to the committee and the urban design consultant to determine how it would receive and consider public input. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the council would be told if the public did not want a project. Mr. Braud said that was not the direction the committee had received from the council. Mayor Piercy pointed out that the council had charged the committee with addressing five items: preferred design elements, mix of uses, public open spaces, options for parking and a transition plan for existing businesses. Mr. Zelenka encouraged Ms. Taylor to attend the committee's meetings. He said the consultant had a national reputation and had helped communities across the country work through those same issues. He agreed with Mayor Piercy that the council had not asked the committee to evaluate whether the project should be done, but rather provide recommendations on five elements of the project. He said the committee would not be discussing the merits of the project, but the public was always welcome to comment and could certainly express opinions in opposition and try to sway committee members' opinions. Mr. Clark reiterated that it was difficult to argue that the project was a "done deal and being ramrodded through" while at the same time arguing there was no plan. He said the council was pursuing its goal to involve the public in the creation of the plan to achieve a better outcome. He rejected the notion that downtown was doing well and recent surveys clearly reflected that a majority of the community did not like the state of downtown. His constituents had consistently expressed interest in a downtown they could be proud of and enjoy and he felt the current process and public involvement would help to achieve that. Ms. Bettman hoped that everyone involved in the project would asked themselves whether each component of it was worth a public subsidy or whether there was a better use for the funds than handing them over to private developers. She repeated her request for details of the project activities and funding sources before the council took action on it. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that changes Ms. Bettman requested on July 16 to the ordinance and report had already been made and posted on the City's website. She said the categories in the table were categories included in the Urban Renewal Plan with general descriptions; details of the West Broadway project in terms of all of the funding sources and amounts would not be available until the project plan was more fully developed. She said the City's maximum contribution was $40 million. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy commented that the developers themselves did not yet know the details and were involved in determining whether they could collaborate on a viable project; the council would then determine if that was a project it was willing to support. The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber August 8, 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 convened an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(f) and ORS 192.660(2)(h) to deliberate with designated staff to consider information or records that were exempt by law from public inspection, and for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Mayor Piercy convened an open work session in order for the City Council to take action on items discussed in the executive session. A. WORK SESSION: Options for Response to the Gas Tax Referendum Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to withdraw the City's appeal regarding the gas tax. Ms. Bettman indicated she was in favor of not pursuing an appeal, as there was little to be gained from a public benefit perspective. She wanted to move forward with an ordinance to clarify code language regarding write-in candidates. She was also in favor of sending a written request to the Lane County Elections Office asking that ballots for write-in candidates be retained for a long enough period of time to provide documentation for signature-gathering predicated on those write-in votes. Mr. Clark said he supported the motion as the public had spoken clearly about its wish to have a say in the matter at the ballot box, regardless of whether the City prevailed in court. Mr. Poling said he intended to support the motion. He noted the issue related to a court ruling based on a definition that was not clear and future problems would be avoided by revising the code language. He pointed out that the City Recorder did not create the problem; it was based on State and County regulations regarding voting records and the courts interpretation of the City's code language. Mr. Pryor agreed it was important to recognize that the City was following the Oregon Administrative Rules as it had been for the past 30 years and instead of spending taxpayer dollars on a legal appeal, the City would simply clarify the code language. He noted the gas tax was part of a larger package of solutions to the transportation funding problem. He said that the $.03 tax increase would not begin to address the $170 million backlog of projects and other measures would be required as well. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she was ambivalent about abandoning an appeal as the City had followed the same process for 30 years and the court's ruling was disconcerting; although she did not want to spend taxpayer dollars if there were other options available. Mr. Zelenka said he would support the motion but found the court's ruling “ridiculous”. He said the time and resources necessary to appeal the ruling could not be justified when an ordinance would also fix the problem. He felt it was irresponsible for petroleum interests to oppose steps that could fund repairing the transportation infrastructure. He pointed out that local governments could no longer rely on state and federal resources and would need to ways to meet that need. He thought that the entire funding package should be placed on the ballot. He said that if one portion of the package, such as the gas tax failed, he would not support the rest of the package and the public would have to deal with roads that were not repaired. Ms. Taylor said she would support the motion, although her inclination was to pursue the appeal. She was willing to put the gas tax on the ballot and felt it would pass as people realized it was a fair approach to raising funds for roads. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Interim City Manager Angel Jones said that staff would bring back to the council suggested language for an ordinance. Ms. Bettman said that a $.03 increase was chosen because it could be done by ordinance and adjusted by ordinance in the event other funding options were not available; once the increase was on the ballot it could not be changed. She asked how other councilors felt about a $.04 increase instead of $.03. Mayor Piercy interjected that in a conversation with Commissioner Faye Stewart, he had expressed interest in a countywide measure that would "hold Eugene whole." She said there appeared to be support from petroleum and gas station interests in a countywide gas tax. Ms. Jones added that the City of Springfield was also exploring options for funding its transportation system. She said interest from the County and Springfield presented an opportunity to collaborate on a regional concern. Mr. Pryor recognized Eugene's willingness to take the initiative on transportation funding. He said that while some councilors might prefer a higher or lower gas tax, a $.03 tax had been agreed upon and that was what should be referred to the ballot. He did not want to change an element of the funding package at this point. Mr. Clark said he agreed with the need to generate funding for the transportation infrastructure. He was willing to refer the gas tax to the voters, but objected to equating lack of support for it if the measure failed to a lack of interest by the public in repairing streets. He thought that more General Fund resources should be directed to road repair, but in the interests of supporting a package he was in favor of a $.03 gas tax. He suggested referring all parts of the package to the voters at the same time. He agreed it was good for Eugene to take the lead on transportation funding, but would favor the possibility of decreasing Eugene's gas tax at a point in the future if a countywide tax would make Eugene whole. He said that there was support among other jurisdictions for resolutions that would urge the Board of County Commissioners to enact a countywide gas tax. He wanted staff to prepare language for a nonbinding resolution to the commissioners asking for consideration of a countywide gas tax that would keep Eugene whole. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said he was satisfied with a $.03 tax as a part of the larger package. He said a countywide tax of $.05 in conjunction with Eugene's $.03 tax was required to generate the necessary funding. He agreed with Mr. Clark that the entire funding package should be on the ballot to determine public support for fixing the roads. Mr. Poling said he would support the $.03 gas tax if there were a clear understanding that it would be repealed if a countywide gas tax that left the City harmless were passed. Ms. Taylor agreed with repealing the ordinance and referring the $.03 gas tax to the voters. She was not in favor of referring a larger gas tax, such as $.04. She was opposed to placing other parts of the funding package on the ballot. She expressed interest in a countywide vehicle registration fee and felt it would be supported as every community was facing the need to repair streets. She thought if a county gas tax was passed Eugene could repeal a portion of its gas tax. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the current code automatically repealed $.02 of the current gas tax on February 26, 2008, and the council had three choices: repeal that provision of the code, allow the sunset to take effect and lose that $.02 tax or refer the sunset repeal to the voters. He said in order to retain the $.02 tax, the sunset provision would have to be repealed by either the council or the voters. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the County had experienced difficulty passing funding measures and asked if a countywide tax would be enacted by ordinance or referred to the voters. Ms. Jones said that had not been determined. Ms. Bettman did not believe the City was "whole" currently and it was necessary to act on the City's behalf now and negotiate with the County from a position of strength. Regarding a registration fee, she noted the State had already doubled registration fees and bonded on future revenue and that was not a progressive approach to funding road maintenance as those with a $500 car paid the same as someone with a very expensive vehicle. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager in November to pro- ceed with Option 3b to enact the sunset repeal and refer the $.03 gas tax increase. Mr. Pryor said in an ideal situation he would prefer to see the entire package on the ballot but realized that was not practical as the voters could choose among components or defeat the entire package. He said there would need to be considerable discussion around other components such as a road utility fee and logistically that could not be referred to a vote in November. He wanted to act to refer the gas tax to the ballot quickly and the motion was the appropriate course of action. Mr. Zelenka hoped that the discussion of holding the City harmless meant that a countywide tax of $.08 was enacted, at which point the City could repeal its $.03 tax. He asked if it was feasible to refer the entire funding package as a single ballot measure. Mr. Klein replied that it would be difficult because of the differences in the funding mechanisms, but he would research the matter. He said it would be possible to have separate, but linked ballot measures that were dependent on mutual passage. Mr. Zelenka said he hoped the message to voters was that they were being asked to vote on one piece of a larger funding package. He said it was important for the public to understand that most Oregon cities were facing a road fund deficit and local jurisdictions would need to develop their own solutions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Clark expressed concern that referring the funding package components separately to the voters would result in people thinking that the initial component had fixed the problem and rejecting subsequent measures. He liked the concept of repealing the $.03 increase if a countywide tax was passed as a way to guarantee to the public that the council was not looking at a number of ways to increase taxes. He had heard that the gas dealers association and the Chamber of Commerce were in favor of a countywide gas tax. He said that Representative Nancy Nathanson raised the potential of a metropolitan area-only gas tax, perhaps bounded by schools districts and eliminating the rural areas. Mr. Poling commented that even though the State doubled registration fees, Oregon was still 45th in the nation in terms of its fees. He suggested that the County could be asked to calculate what revenues could be generated from various levels of a countywide registration fee. Mayor Piercy said the County was reluctant to enact a funding mechanism after its recent experiences with the voters. Ms. Bettman said she would not support including caveats in the ballot measure. She said there was no assurance that funds raised by the County would be dedicated to maintenance and preservation and she knew the County preferred to use the funds for other purposes, such as new roads. She said it was unknown what the County would establish as a tax rate and how that would be distributed to cities and, therefore, she was uncertain if Eugene would receive enough to be held harmless. Mr. Klein said he was not certain what the term "hold harmless" meant in terms of including that reference in the $.03 gas tax ballot measure. He could attempt to include ballot measure language that would indicated if the County enacted a $.03 tax that applied to the City of Eugene, the City would get all of that revenue generated from gas stations within Eugene. He pointed out that the council already had the authority to change the $.03 tax, whether enacted by the voters or the council, and that was the simplest approach instead of trying to craft ordinance language to reflect those provisions. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend the discussion by 10 minutes. The mo- tion to extend passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Klein determined there were no objections to taking action on the ordinance the following week. Public Works Director Kurt Corey reminded the council that the short amount of time before a November election meant the council and mayor would need to be active participants in advocating for passage of a ballot measure. Mr. Zelenka asked if ballot measure language could indicate that the City's tax would be reduced propor- tionately if the County enacted a tax at a certain level. Mr. Klein said he would attempt to do so. Mr. Zelenka said the transportation subcommittee directed staff to discuss other funding options with the County and other jurisdictions, including a vehicle registration fee and rental car fee. Mr. Clark commented that the City's backlog of deferred road maintenance had not developed because more roads were built, but because the money that was available was spent on the wrong things and that was the perception of many people in the community. He said the County was facing loss of money in its Road Fund and other financial shortfalls and would need to enact some funding measure; it made sense for the City to collaborate with the County. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman said the tax had the potential to pass if the council supported it, but if it was complex and tied to County actions it could be jeopardized and she would not support it. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones Interim City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2007 Page 5 Work Session