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 24, 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 11, 2007, City Council Meeting, July 9, 2007, Work Session, July 16, 2007, Work Session, and July 23, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.June 11, 2007, City Council Meeting B.July 9, 2007, Work Session C.July 16, 2007, Work Session D.July 23, 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\M070924\S0709242A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2007—Regular Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/10/07 rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff 9/11 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Returned to Staff __ ____ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall June 11, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor. 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. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, understood that the City Council had given a directive to the th Lane Transit District (LTD) on October 19, 2006, that the West 11 Avenue corridor be designated the next thth EmX route. He proposed using 6 Avenue and 7 Avenue and Highway 99 instead. He asserted that the streets in question were wide enough already and had the capacity for the EmX. He thought business th owners would try and shut down the idea of West 11 Avenue route if the City tried to implement it. He asked the council to give LTD a different directive. Ruth Duemler , 1245 Fircrest Drive, said she was not surprised to see the article in the The Register-Guard regarding the filing of a labor grievance by the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) over contract issues having to do with the Police Auditor’s office. She opined that the EPEA was “attempting to reduce the power” of the auditor. She stated that the citizens had voted for the formation of the auditor’s office and the citizens wanted it to be “free of the City Manager, free of the police department.” She asserted that the citizens wanted the office and the Civilian Review Board (CRB) to be able to speak up and be accountable to the citizens of the city of Eugene. She was unhappy to see this “brought up again.” She wanted another review of the past police complaints because she believed that the public had not had access to the information through the prior investigations. Donovan Burchell , 1350 Elkay Drive, stated that he had been working on a school project concerning the condition of the roads. He proposed that fines for all non-motorized vehicles be halved. He related that he had heard overwhelming support for wider bicycle lanes and for more of them. He said there were not enough bicycle lanes, especially in the downtown area. Joe Collins , Woodtique Condominiums, 2233 Hawkins Lane, recalled that he had suggested a number of budget cuts at the last council meeting. He related that he had taught English in California until his retirement in 1993. At that time he moved to his current residence. He reiterated his allegations regarding MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting drug activity in the adjacent condominium. He said he had raised his concerns repeatedly with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Woodtique Homeowners Association but he did not feel his allegations were adequately looked into. He stated that further information was available on his Web site seethelaw- suck.com. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, commended City Manager Dennis Taylor for his work. He likened City Manager Taylor’s departure to “shooting the messenger.” He regretted that the City would be “kicked off center” at a time of key growth. Mr. Vishanoff averred that the Police Chief had done a good job. He was glad that the Police Auditor’s office was in place. He hoped that the populace would not consider the Police Auditor to be a “magic bullet” that would take care of the problems. He felt the taser proposal was going “around the back door” of the police reform and public trust. He considered the whole council to be a police review board. He urged councilors, if they had any misgivings about the use of tasers, to hold back. He did not want a controversial item like tasers, which could potentially kill people, to come into play at this time. Mr. Vishanoff passed out copies of Radical Evolution to half of the council and indicated he would bring more copies to the next meeting. He noted that he had already given a copy to Mayor Piercy. Mark Rabinowitz , PO Box 51222, Eugene, noted that the council had just been provided a presentation by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on the Interstate 5 bridge project over the Willamette River. He understood that $70 million was allocated for the bridge construction and that $110 million was allocated for collateral projects, which he considered to be “unspecified costs.” He wanted the City to require a breakdown of the costs. He asserted that if the bridge was built to the standard of the width of Interstate 5, money could be saved and a “fancier bridge” could be built. He did not believe that traffic would increase between now and 2030. He alleged that as gasoline became more expensive and “gas rationing was implemented,” traffic would be reduced. He believed that part of the environmental impact of the bridge was its size. Mr. Rabinowitz registered his unhappiness with the basketball arena, which he asserted was erroneously proclaimed to be a carbon-neutral project. He said he had heard that LTD would spend more money on the EmX route because mistakes had been made on the original route. He closed by saying that accountability was the prerequisite for democracy. Majeska Seese-Green , PO Box 1214, Eugene, said she had been pleased by Ed Russo’s article in the newspaper regarding the City’s city manager/city council form of government. She thought the piece in the paper written by the EPEA representative complained about things having to do with the independent police auditor related to this form of government. She had sought to learn about the City’s form of government and understood it to delineate that the City Manager and the City Council had equal power but that the power was carried out in different ways. She believed that the community needed to have a discussion about the city government and that it needed to revisit the City Charter. th Eric Gran , 808 West 10 Avenue, recalled that he had come before the Budget Committee and City Council one year earlier because the situation at Monroe Park had reached a crisis. He said there had been groups of 50 to 60 “partiers,” drug dealers and users, prostitutes performing sexual acts on “johns,” and other situations that compromised the safety of people who wished to use the park for recreation. He stated that police bicycle patrol teams had been funded to improve the behavior of the park users and the improvement there had been profound. He asserted that the funding had been diverted and he was already MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting seeing an “upswing” in drug dealing. He urged the council to continue its support for funding for the bicycle patrols. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. She noted, regarding Mr. Gran’s testimony, that the topic had been brought up in the preceding work session and Councilor Bettman had requested a memorandum on urban core bicycle patrols from Police Chief Bob Lehner. Councilor Solomon said she had polled her colleagues to determine if there was interest in having a discussion on the city manager/city council form of government and there were not enough votes to devote a work session to the subject. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for coming to testify in the Public Forum. She said she was interested in the testimony regarding fines to bicyclists. She thought there was some merit to Mr. Burchell’s suggestion. She opined that there should be some bonus to people who choose to ride their bicycles. She requested a copy of the fine structure for bicycle tickets. City Manager Dennis Taylor agreed to outline the rationale behind the fines. He noted that a transportation subcommittee tried to address concerns about widening and increasing the bicycle lanes. Councilor Ortiz also wished to underscore her support for continued bicycle patrols of Monroe Park. Councilor Bettman opined that the City was spending a lot to revitalize the downtown area and “if staff had their way we would spend over $100 million to do it.” She noted her request for a memorandum from the Police Chief regarding whether funding had changed for the bicycle patrols. Councilor Bettman commented that she was “alarmed” to read that the Police Auditor had not been monitoring investigations. She believed that the Police Chief was supposed to work out the protocols regarding how this would happen. She wondered what obstacle was preventing the Police Auditor from doing this job. City Manager Taylor indicated that he would have City Attorney Sharon Rudnick speak to the council about the bargaining sessions. Councilor Bettman alleged that the EPEA was undermining oversight of the complaints against officers, adding that this was discouraging to her. Councilor Poling stated, in response to testimony on the EmX, that the council did not give any direction to th use West 11 Avenue as a transit corridor. He said he had made the recommendation to consider a West Eugene route and that different possibilities be included in this initial consideration. He also clarified that businesses did not shut down the Coburg Road route, the subcommittee stakeholder group which included residents, business people, and elected officials had decided that having a route in the area would not work for the commercial or residential areas along the corridor. Councilor Poling thanked Councilor Solomon for her comments on polling the council about whether to have a work session to discuss the form of government. He wished to underscore that neither Councilor Solomon nor himself favored changing the current form of government. He said they wanted to have an open discussion in public purview on the forms of government that were out there in order to make very clear what the expectations were to the next city manager hired. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - February 22, 2007, Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda 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. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 8:03 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 1043 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene Adopting the Budget, Mak- ing Appropriations, and Declaring the Amount of Tax to be Certified for the Fiscal Year Begin- ning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 City Manager Taylor recommended the adoption of the budget as proposed. He noted that it had been unanimously recommended by the Budget Committee. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman said normally action would not be taken immediately after a public hearing. City Attorney Jerry Lidz clarified that the rule that prohibited taking action immediately after a public hearing pertained to ordinances and not to resolutions. Councilor Bettman averred that the resolution certified to the assessor the authority to proceed and collect taxes to support the Urban Renewal Agency’s activities. She said she would oppose it as she felt it shifted tax money from schools and general funds to what she referred to as “some pretty wild plans.” Mayor Piercy thanked the Budget Committee for all of their work. She noted that Councilor Taylor was absent because she was attending a conference. Urban Renewal Agency President Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 1043 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene adopting the budget, making appropriations, and declaring the amount of tax to be certified for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 8:07 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4909 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2006, and Ending June 30, 2007 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, thanked Kitty Murdoch, Budget Manager for the Central Services Department, for providing him with information about the supplemental budget. He said he had reviewed it and did not see much out of the ordinary. He favored most of the changes, such as the half-day seminar for creating multi-cultural alliances and the increase of funding to the Neighborhood Matching Grants. He had one question regarding $200,000 in stolen wire. He had not seen the memorandum discussing it, written by Public Works Maintenance Director Jeff Lankston, that the budget referred to and he hoped that ways to mitigate the situation were being explored. He also wondered how much of the Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (UEFB) would be brought forward to the beginning working capital. Ms. Murdoch indicated that they would not know the amount of marginal working capital until the audit was completed in the fall. City Manager Taylor asked Executive Director for the Public Works Department, Kurt Corey, to speak about the stolen copper wire. Mr. Corey explained that 100,000 feet of copper wire had been lost to theft over the previous summer and fall at a total cost of $375,000. He said the supplemental budget request represented the amount above what the department could afford to replace. He further explained that the loss of wiring and lighting was occurring on off street bicycle paths and was not eligible for road funds. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman noted that $75,000 had been deducted from the Central Services Department expendi- tures on City Attorney appropriations and reassigned to other departments of the City. She asked if that was all for attorney services in those departments. Jim Carlson, Executive Director for the Central Services Department, replied that this was something the City did every year and the money was all for legal services. He explained that when the budget was developed General Fund legal services were allocated to departments based on historical trends. He stated that a contingency line item was maintained in the Central Services Department and this was the time of the year when actual expenditures for legal services were reviewed and accounting adjustments were made. He underscored that the City did this every year. Councilor Bettman asked why the City’s insurance did not pay for copper wire theft. She averred that the City had a “huge” risk reserve. Mr. Carlson replied that the basic answer to the question was that the risk fund did not cover capital improvements that were not inside of facilities. He noted that, as an example, the City’s insurance did not pay for damage to streets or to storm sewers. Councilor Bettman repeated her question, asserting that theft was theft and should be covered. Mr. Carlson reiterated that it did not cover theft of capital investments. He said if someone steals a stop sign the City has to purchase a new one with Road Fund money. Councilor Bettman asked if it was typical for communities to allow themselves to be “that exposed to risk.” Mr. Carlson responded that it was not considered a major risk when talking about capital infrastructure systems. He stressed that it was very different from the risk associated with an automobile on the street or with a potential loss of a building subject to a fire. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman opined that it defied logic to transfer money that could pay for other services to cover theft. She indicated she would oppose the supplemental budget. Councilor Zelenka observed that the issue of metal theft went beyond the City of Eugene. He stressed that theft occurred because the price of metal had skyrocketed. He noted that some people were now risking their lives to steal wire from high voltage substations. He believed that a lack of process on the part of the people who purchase the scrap wire was to blame. He stated that a metal theft bill was currently working its way through the Legislature that would fix the problem by preventing purchasers from buying stolen goods, but it had not yet passed. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4909 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year be- ginning July 1, 2006, and ending June 30, 2007. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. 5. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4910 Electing to Receive State Revenue Sharing Funds Pursuant to Section 221.770 of Oregon Revised Statutes; Resolution 4911 Certifying that the City of Eugene Provides the Municipal Services Required by Oregon Revised Statutes Section 221.760; and Resolution 4912 Adopting the Budget, Making Appropriations, Determining, Levying and Cate- gorizing the Annual Property Tax Levy for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Ad Valorem Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 City Manager Taylor stated that the budget before the council had been recommended by a unanimous vote of the Budget Committee. He said the $498,300,000 budget spoke largely to the recommendations he had made and included approximately $430,000 in one-time expenses that matched council priorities and a $15,000 increase to improve the Sister City program. He believed it was a sound budget and the product of hard work on the part of the Budget Committee. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, asserted that the backlog of street repairs should have been part of the normal budget process. He did not think that traffic calming elements should be “mixed” with the backlog because he felt it was new construction. Mr. Vishanoff expressed concern that the “congress of new urbanism” was having a negative impact on planning activities. He commented that some people felt like it was becoming an “architectural cult.” He thought the public should have a conversation about it. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, thanked the City Manager for his hard work during his tenure with the City of Eugene. He also wished to thank everyone on the Budget Committee for their hard work. He added his endorsement to the budget, noting that he had missed the last two meetings of the Budget Committee. Mr. Barofsky said he was glad that the Council Committee on Transportation Funding was moving forward, though he had been dismayed to see the garbage hauler fee eliminated from the equation. He hoped that sort of funding mechanism could be revisited. He believed that the cost of doing the garbage service business MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting was subsidized by taxpayers. He suggested that the percentage of profit given to the garbage haulers be decreased and the extra reallocated to the preservation and maintenance of infrastructure. Majeska Seese-Green , PO Box 1214, Eugene, said if the funding for the bicycle patrols of the neighbor- hood parks had been reallocated it should be restored. She noted that she was the “point person” for Scobert Park and she had been assured that they did not need to worry about lobbying for the bicycle patrols because the funding was there. Ms. Seese-Green reiterated her support for funding allocated to neighborhood-related issues and the Neighborhood Empowerment Initiative. She believed it was very important to keep the neighborhood leadership infrastructure in place and funded. She related that she had recently attended a conference called “Re-Localization.” She related that one of the ideas in the conference was to begin having more things happen at a local level such as food production. She stated that this also included enhancing governance at a local level. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. She noted that she had been assured that the urban core park patrols were intact as intended by the previous budget approval. Councilor Bettman stated that the council would have to request a work session in order to review the policy regarding the garbage hauling contracts. She thought she could support having the garbage haulers pay a portion of their profits to help pay for road maintenance. Councilor Zelenka thanked those present who testified with regard to the transportation system funding proposal. He stated that the proposal was for pedestrians and bicycles as well as for cars and trucks. He said it took into consideration the effects of traffic on neighborhoods and this was why it included money for traffic calming as well as potholes. Councilor Zelenka noted his disappointment in seeing that the Oregon Petroleum Association was collecting signatures to repeal all of the gas tax, including what had been previously enacted. City Manager Taylor clarified that the Fiscal Year (FY) 08 budget did not include any of the elements recommended by the Subcommittee on Transportation Funding. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4910 electing to receive state revenue sharing funds pursuant to Section 221.770 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4911 certifying that the City of Eugene provides the municipal services required by Oregon Revised Stat- utes Section 221.760. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4912 adopting the budget, making appropriations, determining, levying and categorizing the annual ad valorem property tax levy for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the Resolution 4912 to al- locate up to $170,000 to complete the buildable lands inventories specified in the Lane Council of Governments scope of work, specifically the commercial/industrial demand study and the residential supply and demand studies. This amount would be offset by the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall. Councilor Clark believed this work needed to be done in order to provide the council with better information and to provide the ground work for better planning. He said while the City may be in technical compliance with the law, it was not in compliance with the spirit of periodic review. He opined that it may hurt the City and likely had already done so. He was bringing forward the motion at this time because the Oregon Legislature had now voted to ask the City of Eugene to conduct this review. He underscored that the bill had been backed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, The Register-Guard, and 1000 Friends of Oregon, among others. Mayor Piercy said she supported passing the budget as it was presented. She averred that the City had always intended to do the buildable lands study as required. She stated that the City would comply if and when the legislation was signed into being. Councilor Bettman opposed the amendment. She said she would not support the budget if the amendment passed. She estimated the cost of the bill to be more than $1 million. She did not think the allocation suggested in the amendment would accommodate the cost. Councilor Bettman registered her objection to “politicizing” the budget. She averred that the legislation had been submitted on behalf of the Lane County Home Builders Association and that the association had lobbied for the bill. She believed that the home builders association opposed densifying businesses but supported densifying residences. She alleged that the association was after an unlimited supply of “raw land.” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to table the amendment to a date certain. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka vot- ing in favor. Councilor Ortiz indicated she would oppose the amendment. She felt very frustrated by the bill in the legislature. She had, in particular, taken umbrage to comments made on the House floor referring to the Eugene City Council as a “4:4 split.” She stressed that she tried to represent her constituency in all votes. Councilor Zelenka observed that the legislation had not been signed into being. He understood that the City Attorney was preparing a memorandum on the ramifications of the legislation. He averred that it was important to consider the information prior to moving forward with a motion for a land supply study. He commented that he would support the amendment in order to bring a motion to reconsider it at the next meeting. He believed that bringing such an amendment before the council when the majority had shifted, given that Councilor Taylor was not present, was an inappropriate way to move something controversial forward. Councilor Pryor said he intended to vote against the amendment for procedural reasons. He stated that he supported conducting a land supply study. He did not want the council to engage in “malicious obedience,” in which the council would delay action for as long as legally possible. He said if the law passed and was legally binding the City would have to abide by it in a way that was timely and respected that it had been signed into law. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark asked legal counsel if the legal memorandum had anything to do with the buildable lands inventory or other issues related to HB 3337. Mr. Lidz was uncertain of the answer. Councilor Clark believed that there may be other issues related to the requirements placed on the City by HB 3337. He stressed that the amendment did not intend to politicize the budget; he stated that it was an issue that he had brought up before. He said his intent had been clear about why he felt it was important to conduct a buildable lands inventory. He noted that he had not supported HB 3337, but he believed that it had resulted from the City of Eugene’s unwillingness to work cooperatively with the City of Springfield. He thought it would be wise to consider doing the inventory in the next year, especially given the requirements of the bill. City Manager Taylor said the estimate in the amendment was based on a “quick and dirty” scope of work estimate made by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He related that the estimate of $100,000 covered the residential lands only. He requested more time to come forward with a mature estimate of what it would cost to conduct a full inventory. Mayor Piercy expressed frustration at the implication that some of the councilors might have the intention to never conduct a buildable lands inventory. She said this was not true. She added that according to the charter, a 4:4 vote counted. Councilor Zelenka said he intended to obey the law. He did not think it was prudent to enact the amendment at this time. Councilor Bettman asserted that the home builders association would not “rest” until the urban growth boundary (UGB) extended “from Mount Pisgah to Coburg.” She believed that the real motivation was to have unlimited access to farm land and forest land for development. Councilor Clark underscored that the amendment was not “spur of the moment.” He said he had made four motions in the last six months along the same lines. He had thought that since the Legislature had spoken clearly it was the opportune time to take the action. He disagreed with the idea that the home builders association or City of Springfield was forcing Eugene into an uncomfortable position. He stated that the truth was that the discussion had been underway for a long time. He reiterated that a land use study would be the way to find out whether or not there is enough buildable land within the City of Eugene’s UGB. Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 4:3; councilors Clark, Solomon, and Poling voting in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 9, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/20/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff 9/14 Returned to Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 9, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy said she was pleased by the “perfect storm of arts and the outdoors” that occurred the previous week. She related that she had walked in the Butte to Butte run and that both the Oregon Bach Festival and Arts in the Vineyard took place. She commented that this was what the community was about and why the people who lived here like it. Mayor Piercy reported that there had been no fireworks-related injuries in the City of Eugene over the Fourth of July. She expressed sadness for the fatality that occurred in Springfield. Mayor Piercy stated that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was meeting later in the week. She noted that she received emails requesting that the MPC meetings be televised in order to help publicize the major transportation issues that the MPC sometimes addressed. Mr. Pryor related that the West Eugene Collaborative, the group working on transportation solutions for West Eugene, had two subcommittees working on white papers. He explained that the papers were on the issues regarding transportation and how the group could interface with the City and the Lane Transit District (LTD) in terms of the studies that were being conducted. He said they were working on scheduling two meetings so the work of the collaborative group could be brought before the council. Mr. Pryor said he had occasion twice in the preceding ten days to require the services of Eugene paramedics. He applauded the work of the Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department. He underscored that “to a person,” every staff member was “thoughtful, considerate, professional, helpful, and just did an absolutely fantastic job.” Ms. Taylor felt the council should discuss whether it should take action to regulate fireworks. She said many people had written to her expressing their concern. She averred that there were questions on whether MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 1 Work Session the time fireworks were allowed could be limited or whether they should be banned with the exception of public displays. Ms. Taylor also related that people who live behind the Old Pad Tavern contacted her. She said they did not like the proximity of the smoking area to their back yards. She asked if there was anything the City could do to relocate the smoking area to in front of the building or another location. Additionally, Ms. Taylor noted that she had yet to receive an answer on how much the City paid for the “extra land” at Golden Gardens Park. Ms. Taylor commented that Art in the Vineyard had been very nice. She asked why the City was not watering the grass in Alton Baker Park. Ms. Taylor said someone shared with her that she had received prompt, helpful service from a Eugene Police Department (EPD) officer. Ms. Bettman stated that the disposal fee had been increased for waste haulers and the Eugene waste haulers would be raising their rates. She said she would request a work session to discuss the issue. Mr. Clark reported that he had attended a meeting of the board of directors Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County, Oregon (CVALCO). He related that they had a good discussion about some of the funding issues they were addressing and they also heard a new marketing plan for the next year. He said he attended the Eugene 2008 kick-off at the Fifth Street Public Market, at which the Mayor had spoken. Mr. Clark stated that he had attended the recent Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) meeting, which focused on the continuing discussion of where a park should be sited. He said a City staff person attended the meeting to discuss this as well. Mr. Zelenka announced that Tom Kemper, of KWG Development Partners, would speak to the City Club on July 13. He encouraged everyone to attend. He suggested the councilors meet with him and become better acquainted with him after that event. He also reported that the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) held an initial meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for July 11. Mr. Zelenka understood that petitioners seeking to repeal the gas tax had gathered 11,000 signatures to place it on a ballot. He opined that a repeal would be a “major step backwards.” Continuing, Mr. Zelenka echoed the positive comments on the Art in the Vineyard event. He also enjoyed the Midori concert, which was part of the Oregon Bach Festival. Mr. Zelenka stated that he had attended the recent meeting of the Lane Workforce Partnership. He reported that the group passed its budget and elected Bobby Lee to serve as the new president. Ms. Ortiz related that the Union Pacific Railroad was hosting a gathering at the office of the Red Cross at 7 p.m. on July 12; fliers were provided to the councilors. She was disturbed by the short notice. Ms. Ortiz said she would be placing a motion on the table later in the meeting to provide free parking for the Eugene Celebration. Ms. Ortiz reported that the Police Commission convened a subcommittee to consider tasers and the policies that should govern the use of tasers should the City proceed to acquire them. She said a public input MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 2 Work Session session, held on June 27, had been attended by approximately 50 people. She related that the room had been divided into four tables of information. The tables had been facilitated by different groups: the Human Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), EPD, and one other. She thought it had been well-received to a certain extent but some people did not feel they had been able to speak directly to the Police Commission. She said the Police Commission planned a public process session at 5:30 p.m. on July 12. City Manager Taylor stated that the results of the tabulation of signatures supporting placement of a referendum on the gas tax on the ballot would be in by the end of the week. He indicated that August 13 had been tentatively set aside for a discussion of what options might be considered, should there be enough signatures. City Manager Taylor agreed that it had been a “fabulous week” to enjoy the arts and outdoors. He urged everyone to take care during the upcoming heat wave. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal – Sustainability Initiative Action Plan City Manager Taylor stressed that sustainability was a council goal. He stated that Susan Muir, executive director of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), had served as the convener of the Sustainabil- ity Initiative Team that prepared the Sustainability Initiative Draft Action Plan. He asked her to introduce the item and the Sustainability Manager for the City of Eugene, Felicity Fahy. Ms. Muir introduced the members of the Sustainability Initiative Team. She gave special recognition to Library Services Director, Connie Bennett, who served as the staff lead for the team until Ms. Fahy was hired as Sustainability Manager. She reviewed the council discussion on sustainability that occurred in January. She underscored that it provided context for development of the draft action plan. She invited Ms. Fahy to the table to provide an overview of the draft. Ms. Fahy thanked the council for the opportunity to present the draft plan. She applauded the depth of knowledge and commitment to sustainability issues the City of Eugene demonstrated. She provided an overview of the draft. Mayor Piercy noted that a growth in businesses with sustainable practices was reflected in the language under B. City Council Goal Outcomes but she felt it was missing language regarding how to support the economic niche of businesses that produce sustainable products. She thought the City of Eugene should work with the State and other partners to try to pursue economic development that produced sustainable products. Mr. Clark concurred. He hoped the City would work to “incentivize” and help businesses that were “already wonderful examples of sustainable work.” He wanted to find ways to help the businesses succeed “even more” and also to work on how to better recruit such businesses to come to the city of Eugene. Ms. Fahy affirmed that this was part of the discussion. She said one item of discussion was an enhancement of the best practices recognition program in order to hold businesses up as a role model for good work. Mr. Clark noted that the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce gave annual Emerald Awards in recognition of businesses that were operating in a sustainable fashion. He thought there might be an opportunity for some interaction with the City in this. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka acknowledged the work that staff had done thus far to promote sustainability. He hoped that the new City Council offices would be targeted for energy efficiency measures so that they could be a model of sustainability. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Fahy stated that the deadline for applications for the Sustainability Commission was September 7. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work done so far. He agreed that incentives were a great way to promote sustainability. He wanted to keep in mind the “micro things” that could be done while thinking about the “macro things” that the City wanted to do. He stressed that often the little things made a large impact. Mayor Piercy said the chamber would be focusing on sustainable economic development goals at an upcoming meeting. She noted that the she had been giving out “Bold Steps” awards to businesses that had sustainable business practices. She also reminded everyone of the Mayor’s Climate Challenge, accessible from the City’s Web site. Ms. Bettman asked if a motion to approve the draft would mean that the council was approving all of it. Ms. Muir affirmed that such a motion would approve the draft in its entirety as recommended. Ms. Bettman averred that sustainability meant having clean adequate water, clean air, adequate farm land to provide food, and a secure economic base. She felt the first final outcome measure did not provide enough detail; it did not say whether the number of sustainable businesses would increase or decrease and what it took to be a sustainable business. She pointed out that the other two final outcome measures were related to community surveys. She opined that sometimes the City was “so busy celebrating small accomplishments that [it] forgot to look at the larger destructive practices” in which it engages. Ms. Bettman asserted that farm and forest land was being paved over and this was not being addressed; people were not investing enough in alternative modes of transportation. She said without this, the City would not “get to sustainabil- ity.” She indicated she would vote against the plan because, unless the larger issues were addressed, “we are just kidding ourselves.” She hoped the Sustainability Commission would come back with “some realistic outcomes.” Ms. Taylor thought Ms. Bettman made a good point. She suggested that the council may want to take more time to think about what was really wanted. She opined that one good example of sustainability was to “save some of the land at the Amazon Headwaters.” She declared that if the City did not protect its water source, it was not being sustainable. She did not have a lot of faith in community surveys. She wanted to make a difference in what the future would be. She recalled that a planning commissioner had opined that sustainable growth was an oxymoron. She said they had taken the “growth out of the sustainable part” and talked about sustainability alone. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the draft contained the “first blush” for outcomes and that the Sustainability Commission would flesh the outcomes out. He believed that having staff draft the outcomes would be tantamount to placing “the cart before the horse.” City Manager Taylor concurred, adding that the work would come back before the council in the form of a commission action plan. Mr. Zelenka said he would amend the action plan to include the original recommendations. Mayor Piercy suggested that the outcomes be removed from the draft for the present. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman expressed skepticism. She averred that sustainability measures had been talked about for approximately 17 years. She noted that the State adopted an administrative rule requiring that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs) to be reduced from the levels of 1990 by 2010. She asserted that unless the City undertook sustainability, addressed the issues, and put “teeth” into regulation it would just be “throwing money away.” Ms. Taylor agreed that the motion should be amended to remove the final outcomes from the language. She added that building roads was not sustainable in the face of the backlog of road maintenance and preserva- tion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the Sustainability Initiative Action Plan with the removal of the Final Outcome Measures in section F. Monitoring and Evaluation. Ms. Bettman indicated that she still opposed the plan. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Agate/Fairmount Transportation Study Update Mayor Piercy indicated that Ms. Ortiz would place her motion regarding parking for the Eugene Celebration on the table prior to addressing the transportation study update. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to allocate $7,500 from the General Fund Con- tingency to provide for fully free event parking at all City garages and parking meters dur- ing the Eugene Celebration. Mr. Pryor noted that the amount had been the best guess at what the parking could cost. He offered a friendly amendment so that the language would read “not to exceed $9,000.” The maker of the motion and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman questioned whether this would encourage people not to drive. She offered a friendly amendment to provide free bus passes for celebration goers. The amendment was not accepted by the second. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion so that it would provide free bus passes for celebration goers. Mr. Clark stated that the event organizer should make the argument for free bus passes. He thought the organizer was likely to do so. He stressed that parking was a City facility but the Lane Transit District (LTD) was not. Ms. Taylor suggested that the motion say that the passes would be provided if needed. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the motion was not a request from the Eugene Celebration; rather it had been requested by the downtown merchants. He thought a motion that went forward with free bus passes would be closer to the goals of sustainability the City was embracing. He felt the parking spaces would be taken up by the booth vendors in the downtown area first. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon opposed providing free parking, but she found the idea of providing LTD bus passes compelling. She was uncertain how to vote on it without knowing what LTD intended to do and what it had done in the past. She recommended that the amendment be deferred until this information was available. Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Ortiz withdrew her motion pending further information. Mayor Piercy ascertained that there was no objection to withdrawal of the motion. Ms. Solomon said if it was determined that the City would pay for bus passes as well as provide free parking she would expect the cost not to exceed $9,000, as previously stated. Mayor Piercy thought the City should do what it could to encourage people to walk, ride bicycles, and take the bus to the Eugene Celebration given that this year’s theme was sustainability. She said one possibility would be to consider not ticketing people for parking violations during the Celebration as this would be more “friendly.” Ms. Taylor noted that there were people who did not live close to a transit stop. City Manager Taylor indicated that staff would summarize the discussion and determine what the costs would be and what LTD intended to do. City Manager Taylor recalled that the council adopted the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study several years earlier. He said Transportation Planning Manager for the Engineering Division, Rob Inerfeld, would present one of the outcomes of the study, which was how to address traffic that cuts through the area. Mr. Inerfeld reviewed the previous council direction on the issue. He provided a summary of the transporta- tion studies that had been completed and reviewed the public participation that had taken place, as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) on the topic. He provided an overview of the proposed plan as agreed upon by the Fairmount Neighbors Traffic Calming Committee and the University of Oregon. He asked for council direction as to whether staff should proceed with the proposal. Ms. Bettman favored traffic calming. She asked if the University had offered to contribute to any of the proposed capital improvements. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the University offered to contribute to the potential enhancements to the traffic calming devices on the streets that went through the campus area. Ms. Bettman asked why the whole proposal would not be included in the traffic mitigation package for the arena. Mr. Inerfeld responded that the source for funding the second phase of the traffic calming project and th changes to the 14 and Agate crossing had not been identified at this point. Ms. Bettman did not want signalization and that type of element to be paid for out of the neighborhood traffic calming budget. Mr. Inerfeld said if the arena was built soon, it was possible that the changes to the th 14 and Agate crossing would be paid for out of that project. Ms. Bettman observed that the first phase of the traffic calming elements would cost $45,000 and this was almost half of the budget. Mr. Inerfeld responded that the City had $30,000 left from the previous year. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 6 Work Session said that there was approximately $85,000 available in the FY08 budget. Ms. Bettman averred that the remainder of the traffic calming budget for 2008 should go to other neighborhoods. Mr. Clark asked if the list of traffic calming projects had been prioritized. Mr. Inerfeld replied that staff would work on prioritizing the list in the next “month or so.” th Mr. Zelenka commended Mr. Inerfeld for his work with the neighborhood on the plan. He said the 14 Avenue and Agate Street crossing was a dangerous spot. He felt that people trying to avoid that spot created the issues of people cutting through the neighborhood, thereby increasing traffic on residential streets. Mr. Zelenka related that he had asked the athletic director for the University of Oregon about his willingness to commit to a public process regarding the impacts to the neighborhood from the arena project. He commented that he had not been satisfied with the answer and said he would follow up on it. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Inerfeld explained that the criteria for traffic calming projects scored them on speed, traffic volume, proximity of schools and bicycle routes and then the projects were ranked based on their scores. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum on what the differences were in the prioritization scoring. Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of taking into consideration what impacts placing speed bumps on one street would have on other streets around it. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to direct staff to pro- ceed with traffic calming improvements in the Fairmount neighborhood using FY08 traffic calming funds up to $45,000, with the remainder of funds to be dispersed in other parts of th the community, and to identify funding for pedestrian improvements at 14 Avenue and Agate Street in the development of the next six-year Capital Improvement Plan. City Manager Taylor noted that $45,000 was an estimate. He asked if the council wished for the City Manager to come back with it, should the cost actually be higher. Ms. Bettman had been surprised by the “$45,000 price tag.” “Mr Inerfield said that $2,500 is the basic speed hump cost that staff has been using.” She had thought speed bumps cost approximately $2,500 apiece and speed tables were slightly more than that. Mr. Zelenka supported providing other neighborhoods with traffic calming features but he had some concern about tying a cost to the motion, given that $45,000 was a good faith estimate. He asked if the maker of the motion if she would accept a friendly amendment to change the language to “about $45,000 with the understanding that if the total was substantially different it would be brought back before the council.” Ms. Ortiz thought a change in the amount could be placed on the Consent Calendar without any trouble. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/24/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff 9/14 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 16, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Public Improvements; Amending Sections 7.010, 7.085, 7.095, 7.100, 7.130, 7.140, 7.145, 7.175, 7.190, 7.205, 7.210, 7.220, 7.290, 7.297, 7.302, 7.305, 7.307, 7.360, 7.370, 7.385, 7.405, 7.407, 7.410, 7.415, 7.425, 7.445, 7.720, 7.725, and 7.735 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 7.090, 7.143, 7.350, and 7.365 to that Code; Repealing Section 7.400 of that Code; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that this was a follow-up to the work session held the previous week. Development Review Manager for the Public Works Department Engineering Division, Peggy Keppler, explained that the hearing solicited testimony regarding the revisions to Chapter 7. She noted that the driveway definition had been changed so that it only reflected driveways on privately owned property. She said the warranty period had been redefined and 7.145 had been changed so that it would read that there would be at least a one-year warranty period. She related that there were also construction standards in place and there were several types of construction activity that might require more than a one-year warranty. Ms. Keppler stated that staff determined that the driveway approach length was not a problem; the curb cut length created issues and the language had been changed accordingly. She recalled that there was a question as to how access ramps would impact the property owner and it had been determined that they would only be required if a sidewalk was being built along the property. She underscored that if there was just an addition it was exempt according to code. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 1 Work Session 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Housing and Urban Development Section 108/Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Individual Project City Manager Taylor said Denny Braud, Senior Development Analyst for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department, was present to introduce the item. Mr. Braud stated that the Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Program available through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was being considered to support the West Broadway Redevelop- ment project. He explained that use of Section 108 funds would allow the City to access the $2 million Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Grant awarded to the City of Eugene from HUD in the previous year. He said the program created opportunities for cities to borrow up to five times the amount of their annual HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation. He recalled that in March, 2006, the council had approved a resolution authorizing submission of a $7.895 million Section 108 application to HUD. He said the application had been approved by HUD and with the $2 million brownfield grant it had established a loan program that could be accessed for specific projects identified after the approval of the loan pool. Mr. Braud clarified that the public hearing was related to a project-specific proposed use of the Section 108 funds, which included acquisition of properties that were part of the West Broadway project by the City. He listed the properties, as follows: the Centre Court building and the adjacent hole, the Washburn Building, the property fronting Broadway on the south side between Olive and Charnelton Streets, the Roberts Building, and the Scan Design building. He said the total cost of the properties would be $10.8 million and urban renewal funds were being proposed to fill the gap between the Section 108 funds and the total cost. Mr. Braud explained that the properties had been selected for purchase because they had proposed redevelopment uses that aligned with HUD national objectives, primarily job creation and that among all of the purchase options negotiated on the West Broadway project the properties listed were offered closest to market value. He stressed that the funds could only be accessed after the council reviewed recommendations made by the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) and approved a supplemental budget authoriz- ing the use of the funds. He noted that both of those were coming before the council in September. Mr. Braud underscored that the City intended to structure the 108 funds in a manner that would mitigate any risk to future CDBG fund allocations. He said staff was confident that the combined property sale proceeds and the pledge of the existing downtown urban renewal tax revenue would offset any future risk to the program. He added that financing staff demonstrated that the existing urban renewal tax increment was more than sufficient to cover the debt service on the 108 loan. He stated that the CDBG Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and unanimously recommended that the application be submitted. Mayor Piercy asked if there were any questions from the council. Councilor Bettman opined that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) looked like a binding decision from the City Council. She asked if the council would have to approve the final components of the proposal. Mr. Braud reiterated that there would be two council actions. He underscored that there were no binding aspects in the MOU for either side. City Attorney Glenn Klein further clarified that the council would not delegate approval authority to staff. Councilor Bettman observed that the HUD loan required that at least 51 percent of the jobs created be for lower income workers and asked if staff considered how many jobs would be displaced by the development and whether the wage range of the displaced jobs had been considered. Mr. Braud replied that it was MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 2 Work Session projected that approximately 1,600 jobs would be created. He explained that HUD required that one job be created for every $35,000 spent, which amounted to a total of 280 jobs. Councilor Bettman asked if staff knew what the wages would be for the lower end jobs that would be created. Mr. Braud responded that this was unknown at this point. He noted that there was no criterion related to wage scales in the HUD requirements. Councilor Bettman asked how the public could evaluate the public benefit if the public had no proposal to look at. Mr. Braud responded that the City would have to demonstrate job creation given that it was the national objective of the funds. He stressed that after the funds had been spent, the City would have to demonstrate that the national objective had been met; it was a fundamental requirement of HUD. Councilor Bettman reiterated that the public did not have that information available. In response to another question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that the purchase price for the Washburn Building was $1.9 million and for the Centre Court Building it was $2.8 million; this included the “pit.” Councilor Taylor surmised that the Beam proposal was no longer being considered separately. Mr. Braud assured her that there were still two separate MOUs. Councilor Taylor asked how the Scan Design building could be considered as “urban blight.” Mr. Braud explained that an area of determination had been made around the West Broadway development area and no specific element had been attributed to the Scan Design building. Councilor Taylor opined that the process of redevelopment would be “destroying perfectly good businesses doing well.” She asked if there were any sites aside from the two holes that would meet the definition of urban blight. Mr. Braud replied that other conditions that met the definition were that land values exceeded improvement values and building conditions. He noted that the definition of urban blight was complex. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud said no public comments had been received since July 6. Councilor Bettman asked what sort of notice of the proposed ordinance had been provided. Mr. Braud responded that the notice had been listed in the Legal Ads section of the newspaper. Councilor Bettman asserted it was “no wonder nobody had seen them.” Councilor Bettman felt there was very little information in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She asked why there were no findings in the AIS. She said there were federal criteria to meet for the CDBG money, City Council motions, City Council policies, and Urban Renewal District policies but no findings were included for people to review to determine whether the proposal was consistent with them. She believed a strong case could be made that the findings should have been published and followed by a 30-day public comment period. Mr. Braud responded that the application was available for the public to view on the Web site. Councilor Clark thanked the Planning Division staff for its hard work on the proposed downtown redevel- opment project. Councilor Bettman asked how the requirement that the project provide permanent full-time employment for low and moderate income individuals could be substantiated. Mr. Braud explained that the projection for job creation had been based on what the developers submitted to-date and was available as part of the application on the Web site. He underscored that at this point in the process, in that the development had yet MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 3 Work Session to occur, the numbers were just projections. He said ultimately the City would have to monitor the jobs created and demonstrate to HUD that it had complied with the standard. Councilor Bettman called the public process “anemic.” She favored extending the public comment period for 30 days after the information was “readily available,” as the public had a responsibility to watch over the expenditure of public funds to ensure that spending was reasonable and cost-effective. Mr. Braud reiterated that the information was in the application and was available for public view online. He added that there were hard copies available for review at the Atrium Building. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for testimony. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, President of the Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA), requested that the record be left open. He commented that he read The Register-Guard very carefully and did not see information regarding public access to the application. He felt the number of people wishing to speak to this item was indicative of the level of public awareness of the item. He said the CPA hoped the money would be well-spent and that the City would gain a revitalized downtown. He questioned how “blighted” was defined. He thought it was “a stretch” to term some of the buildings blighted. He supported job creation that benefited low- and middle-income citizens. He felt the CDBG moneys had been well used in the past and the CPA wanted them to continue to be used for projects that would benefit the City. Rob Handy , 455½ River Road, was excited about the downtown area and the Broadway development project. He agreed that information was lacking. He thought the criteria for HUD funds could be delineated more clearly. He wondered how the objective of benefiting low- and moderate-income persons could be met. He felt the City should consider using some of the money to defer costs for City Hall or for the potential development of a hospital in the downtown area. He asserted that there were anomalies in the proposal and he hoped it would catch the attention of “a few more public officials.” Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for questions or comments from councilors. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for the testimony. He cited a recent citizen survey in which 80 percent of the respondents felt downtown redevelopment was their top issue. He felt it was a huge issue and the City was taking an important step forward. He had mixed feelings regarding leaving the record open at this point. He did not want to create a habit of finding any way possible to slow the process down. He pointed out that the hearing was one of the first steps in a lengthy process. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to leave the record open for 30 days and to post the application and documentation of consistency with the criteria on the Web site. Councilor Solomon asked what the deadlines were on the options to purchase some of the properties. Mr. Braud responded that the options for purchase of the properties primarily expired in September and October. He said if the record was left open it would delay the process and the submittal of the application. Councilor Solomon opposed the motion. She averred that there had been “plenty of opportunity” for people to participate in the process and to comment on it. Councilor Bettman asked how long the public record could be left open and still allow the council to take action prior to its summer break. Mr. Braud replied that action was scheduled for July 23, which would allow for the record to be left open one week. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Councilor Bettman asked if it could be scheduled so that the record could be left open for two weeks. City Manager Taylor responded that there was opportunity to cover this at the work session. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to change her motion to read that the record should be left open for two weeks and that the Planning and Development De- partment should post the application and articulate how the specifics of the proposal fulfill the objectives of the HUD criteria. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion to leave the record open for one week. Councilor Bettman thought a one-week timeline was too short for people to access the information, “digest it,” and then give feedback. She did not feel it was reasonable. She asserted that the City should have initially provided all of the information and made it easily accessible and readily available. She alleged that when the City “wanted to let people know about something,” it purchased advertising space in the newspaper. She opined that this was tantamount to an omission. Councilor Clark felt Councilor Bettman was implying that Planning Division staff was “being sneaky” and “trying to pull one by people.” He asked staff how the present proposal had been advertised differently from typical noticing. Mr. Braud replied that staff had adhered to HUD standards for public hearings and the advertising for them. He reiterated that staff followed HUD’s criteria for submitting an application for Section 108 funds. Councilor Zelenka reviewed the calendar. He did not believe the council could meet the deadline that leaving the record open for two weeks would create. City Manager Taylor agreed that this was a dilemma. He underscored that the redevelopment subject had been part of extraordinary public involvement processes and a key cornerstone of a concept on how the City would move forward. He believed that leaving the record open for two weeks would jeopardize the time allowed for the City to submit the application and for HUD to consider it. He added that letting the options on the property expire could make it a more costly process. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 4:3; councilors Pryor, Zelenka, and Solomon vot- ing in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion failed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, and Taylor voting in favor. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District, Formerly the Central Lane Project City Manager Taylor asked Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, Richie Weinman, to present the proposed ordinance. Mr. Weinman recalled that the council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency board of directors, initiated a process to amend the downtown Urban Renewal Plan. He said the plan amendment was critical if the City was to use urban renewal funds to participate in the redevelopment of West Broadway between Willamette MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 5 Work Session and Charnelton streets. He explained that the plan currently allowed $33 million in maximum indebtedness and it had nearly all been spent, much of it on the downtown library. He stated that maximum indebtedness was defined as the spending cap during the life of the plan beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. He said as a result of the council’s action and direction on May 29, 2007, the proposed plan amendments would increase the maximum indebtedness by $40 million, for a total of $73 million. The other amendment to the plan would change the termination date of the district from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030, which would provide a more adequate timeframe to finance the City’s portion of the West Broadway project. He noted that a more minor amendment would be to officially change the name of the district to the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Mr. Weinman stated that public comment had been solicited in numerous ways and listed them, as follows: ? A postcard was mailed to all property owners in Eugene that advertised the hearing, provided con- tact information, and directed people to a special Eugene Web site; ? An display advertisement for the hearing had been placed in the Register-Guard; ? Letters soliciting comments were mailed to all of the impacted taxing districts; ? Staff met with the Lane County Finance Committee, which included two County Commissioners, and a letter from the County was included in the council packet; ? Staff met with the Eugene Planning Commission to seek comments from them. Councilor Bettman asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan amendments. Mr. Weinman replied that the commission acknowledged receiving it. He noted that the commission did not have to recommend approval. Councilor Bettman asked what the funding source would have been for the parking garage that had been proposed for the east end of downtown. Mr. Weinman replied that the garage would have been located in the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, different from the downtown district. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, clarified that the garage would have been built using a combination of urban renewal funds and some General Fund money. Councilor Bettman asked how much the costs that would not be included in the maximum indebtedness would amount to. Councilor Bettman referred to Table 5 on page 93 of the AIS and asked what the private expenditure portion of the $160,000,000 figure listed by Projects Funded from Private Sources and Other Federal, State, and Local Government Resources would amount to. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the table represented the best guess of the overall cost and funding at this point in time. She underscored that the table was not part of the plan; rather, it was a report to help evaluate the plan. Councilor Bettman asserted that the council would then approve the plan amendments based on the information though the information was “incorrect.” She asked for an errata report. Ms. Cutsogeorge said she would provide one. Councilor Bettman wished to point out to her colleagues that there was a zero under the total estimated cost for pedestrian, bike, and transit improvements and for public parks, public plazas, rest rooms, and open spaces “just in case [they] had not noticed that.” Councilor Bettman asked what the West Broadway Development project was that was referenced in the report. Mr. Weinman replied that it was the same concept shaped in the discussion begun in the spring. He stressed that it was not fully defined at this point, but staff and the citizens on the committee were trying to proceed with improving the downtown per council direction. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Councilor Bettman felt having a public hearing and endorsing a concept was confusing. Mr. Weinman explained that the ordinance was an amendment to the plan and the council would have to further approve expenditure of any significant funding before it could be spent. Councilor Bettman asked if that had to occur before the adoption of the ordinance that was subject to the hearing. Mr. Weinman reiterated that the council would not approve money until after the ordinance was adopted. Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance could be more accurately titled the “West Broadway Redevelop- ment Concept.” Mr. Weinman said language for such an amendment could be substituted. Councilor Bettman acknowledged the letter from Lane County and asked if there was any response from the other taxing districts that had been contacted. Mr. Weinman replied that the only other one that responded verbally was School District 4J. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman reiterated that all of the other taxing districts had been contacted. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Klein affirmed that the public had 90 days to challenge the ordinance according to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). In response to a follow-up question, Mr. Klein explained that challenge in this case referred to a lawsuit and not a referendum. Councilor Taylor averred that if the ordinance was adopted and the expiration was set for 2030, the City of Eugene would have urban renewal districts in effect for 62 years. She said one of the arguments for urban renewal was that after the districts expired, other taxing agencies would benefit from them. She wondered if any other taxing agencies had benefited from urban renewal. Mr. Weinman replied that there had not been a specific analysis conducted on that issue. He said one could argue in terms of urban renewal districts’ benefits to their immediate environs. Councilor Taylor asked if urban renewal districts ever ended. Mr. Weinman responded that Eugene had a district that ended in the 1970s. Councilor Bettman asked what the timeframe would be if the ordinance was challenged. Mr. Klein believed a referral period was 30 days and that a judicial challenge could be made within 90 days. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. She reviewed the rules of the hearing. th Stanley Pewder , 677 West 12 Avenue, related that in his 20s he had gone to a party in New York City that was held in a complex of subsidized apartments for performing artists. He said artists need cheap housing. He calculated that the City could provide $200 per month vouchers to 1,000 people for 10 years with $24 million to lower the cost of apartments downtown. He noted that one of the big issues was that more people were needed downtown. He believed that if the housing was built the number of people in the downtown area would increase. th Drix , 307½ 14 Avenue, said he was proud to be present for the hearing. He believed that Eugene was a connected town. He likened the development project to kids needing to clean up their rooms. He averred that the project created a beautiful opportunity. He specifically thought the “two holes” presented an opportunity to build something better. He thought the City should tap into the many people of Eugene because they were a real creative resource. He volunteered to help clean up the holes. rd Laura Byxbe , 677 West 23 Avenue, believed the City was about to commit a lot of public money that would be borrowed. She acknowledged that the City was expecting future revenues to pay the debt. She believed the project could be done for less. She suggested that local architects be invited to submit proposals for smaller pieces of the project. She felt local businesses could relocate from existing locations MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 7 Work Session into the redeveloped parts of the project. She did not think it was a good idea to let an out of town developer build an “instant downtown.” Greg Bryant , 2173 Alder Street, explained that he ran a non-profit dance center downtown, the Tango Center, at 194 West Broadway. He said they had worked hard to develop the Tango Center and had invested a lot of money. He averred that the Tango Center managed to create “an exciting place after 8 p.m.” He invited people to come down and check it out. He felt that putting more money into an urban renewal district was not a good idea. He asserted that “the more power [one has] the more destruction [one is] capable of.” He alleged that people who were a threat to people “with lots of money and plans and fantasies” without a broad interface with the people they would affect typically disagreed with their own empowerment. He believed this was why “colonialization was such a popular mechanism.” He felt any study of urban renewal literature would primarily be a “study of human rights violations.” He believed that urban renewal had been a “major tool” for such violations over the past 50 years. He urged the council to be careful when expanding and funding the urban renewal district. Carolyn Kranzler , 2660 Cresta De Ruta, supported the increase in the maximum indebtedness and the extension of the termination date. She averred that the City had a tool and it should take “good advantage of it.” She noted that she had been involved with the DIVA since its inception. She said it would be displaced with the development but she was not afraid; she believed it would do better in a new place. She did not think the buildings being considered for the project were worth saving. Lloyd Holtcamp , 24325 Vaughn Road, Veneta, stated that he owned property at 2171 Madison Street. He noted he was responding to the card he had received at the property. He believed that the amount of money the amendment to the plan would allow to be spent on urban renewal was large enough that it should be placed before the voters. He related that an urban renewal project in Lake Oswego had resulted in an initiative petition to have anything over $2 million go before the voters. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, commended Councilor Bettman. He believed that she was adept at recognizing a “sham process.” He opined that Eugene had a “sham process culture.” He said engaging the public could be exciting and would lead to the creation of more popular spaces, such as parks in the downtown area. Mr. Vishanoff related that the Arena Transportation Issues Committee, a subcommittee of the Fairmount Area Neighbors, was meeting but it was not advertising the meetings. He took issue with that. He thought the subcommittee needed to be forthright about its meetings so that the public did not have to go through a lot of trouble to find out about “meetings in dark rooms.” He averred that urban renewal had many fronts in Eugene. He wanted a plan that really included the citizens. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, recalled the cities in which he once lived and urban renewal projects that had occurred there. He felt urban renewal had been devastating to all of the cities. He believed it was a deficient process. He averred that people deserved to have a proposal and to engage public input before it was a “done deal.” He asserted that he had correctly projected the low number of jobs that the Riverfront Renewal District had generated. He also predicted the Broadway Place development would not produce the benefits that were hoped. He stressed that 40 percent of the cost of the project had come from public funds. He opined that it was difficult to see concomitant public benefit. Jan Wostmann , 2645 Riverview Street, urged the council to not extend the life of the urban renewal district and also not to increase the maximum indebtedness. He believed it was difficult for the public to become involved with this level of financing when there was no project on the table. He likened this to placing the “cart before the horse.” He felt this type of tax increment financing complicates the citizens’ determination MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 8 Work Session of what the highest use of tax dollars would be. He noted the recent discussion of the need for a new City Hall and the need to maintain streets. He acknowledged the citizens’ desire to improve the downtown area but he felt that if questions were asked regarding how it would be paid for in light of the financial needs in other areas, such as the street maintenance and preservation and new city hall, citizens would have a different response. He asserted that parking structures would be on the bottom of their list of priorities. He suggested that the project be placed before the public and financed with a General Obligation (GO) bond. He supported having a vibrant downtown, but he wanted the City to do it in a publicly accountable way. Russ Brink , 251 West Broadway, said he lived at Broadway Place. He read into the record an email from Sue Prichard, Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) board member. He noted that Ms. Prichard was very knowledgeable about the economy of the downtown and the leasing and sale of real estate in the downtown area. Ms. Prichard supported adoption of the ordinance. She believed that tax increment financing was a good tool that would ultimately improve the values of surrounding businesses. She thought it was sometimes okay to make small sacrifices for the overall gain of the community. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, declared that all of the citizens would love to see their taxes stay in their neighborhoods. He opined that it was a great deal for the property owners in the downtown area. He wanted to see revitalization in the downtown area but he questioned how the City was going about it. He alleged that Connor and Woolley were largely responsible for the “blight” in the downtown and opined that “getting rid of them” would improve it. Mr. Monk opposed the ordinance until a specific plan had been developed and the WBAC was done with its work. He reiterated Councilor Bettman’s concern regarding the lack of money listed in Table 5 that was slated for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements and other public facilities. He also had not seen money in the plan for relocation and transition costs for the businesses that could be displaced. Rob Handy , 455½ River Road, was excited about bringing more housing to the downtown area. He asked how the public subsidy could be weighed against the public benefit. He suggested that the City should look at some of the buildings other than the two slated to be renovated. He believed that other buildings would have public benefit to the public subsidy that citizens would understand. He likened the City’s involvement with the developers to a younger woman being dazzled by an older man with money. He asked the council to have the courage to stick to its convictions and to remember the past. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Taylor suggested that while the existence of the holes was being prolonged, the community should consider placing community gardens in them. She asserted that the opportunity for housing had been lost for the Charnelton Street site. Councilor Taylor commented that when the City first discussed options to buy the properties she had toured them. She felt there was a lot of life in those buildings. She agreed with Ms. Byxbe’s recommendation not to build an “instant downtown.” She thought it should be incremental and “organic.” She also thought the initiative to require expenditure of more than $2 million in public money to go before a vote of the people was a good idea. She concurred with Mr. Nicholson, adding that some of the best projects were not subsidized and were outside the urban renewal districts. She also agreed with Mr. Wostmann’s suggestion that the project be paid for with a GO bond. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for everyone who testified. She wanted the public to understand that although she opposed the amendments to the plan, it did not mean that she did not support downtown redevelopment of both of the “holes” and the Centre Court and Washburn buildings. She stressed that these MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 9 Work Session projects could be done without amending the plan. She noted that Thomas Kemper had spoken before the City Club and suggested that copies of the recording be provided to her colleagues. She asserted that he could not answer specific questions about the project. She reiterated her feeling that people would not be able to testify about a spending limit increase without knowing the details of the project. She noted that Mr. Kemper indicated that collaborating with Beam Development would decrease the housing units projected to be built by almost half. She asserted that Eugene may end up with as many housing units or “only slightly more” than it would have had if it went with the “original Sears pit site.” Councilor Zelenka agreed that the processes were arcane and difficult to follow. He said in retrospect the processes were not designed well. He hoped that staff would work with people to directly contact them in order to provide the information needed, given the short timeline. He wished to clarify that the housing project across from the library was being rolled into the larger project. He noted that Mr. Kemper was planning on 80 to 100 affordable housing units and that while KWG Development Partners would drop some housing units, Beam Development indicated it would add some. Councilor Clark thanked staff for all of the hard work that went into the project. He also thanked all the people who spoke at the public hearing. He thanked Mr. Nicholson for his former service to the City, Mr. Handy for investing his time in the WBAC, and Mr. Monk for the work he did trying to make the City better. Councilor Clark said he heard from several people that without a plan the City had the “cart before the horse.” He understood that this was an opportunity for the City to have a process whereby it could have a meaningful discussion about aspects of it in order to create a plan that had more broad support. He felt there were a lot of good public processes. He quipped that Eugene had “elevated public process to a full- contact spectator sport.” He enjoyed that the citizens of Eugene had this level of civic passion. Councilor Clark observed that it seemed some were speaking of the money as though it were money that the City could or would spend in another fashion on a higher priority. He commented that if urban renewal money was allowed to be spent on street repair it would be something he could appreciate, but he acknowl- edged that urban renewal moneys borrow against the potential future increase in the value of the properties that the City was “dealing with.” He said without the project, the values were not there and there was no actual money. He underscored that it was not as though General Fund dollars were being spent that might be spent on something else instead. Councilor Taylor said she attended the City Club at which Mr. Kemper had spoken. She shared that she had been alarmed to hear him say the development would be “up-scale” and that existing businesses would have to relocate. She asserted that he referred to “the right kind of tenants.” She felt this did not mean every kind of tenant. Councilor Taylor said the situation had gotten scary as the council had moved past a point at which it had become too late. She opined that it now seemed the City could not get out of the situation, that it was a “done deal.” She recalled that she had initially hoped that the City would only work with Beam Develop- th ment for the larger development and with KWG Partners to develop the Charnelton/10 Avenue site. She asserted that the City could have had housing units built at the latter site by now had the larger development not “waylaid” it. Councilor Zelenka said he had made the motion to form the WBAC in order to garner more public involvement. He reiterated that all of the activities related to the urban renewal plan amendments were at the direction of the City Council. He stressed that the council asked staff to bring back all of the pieces that would put the council in the position where it could “say yes.” He urged anyone who wanted to get involved MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 10 Work Session in the process to attend a WBAC meeting. He added that it was contradictory to criticize the project for being a done deal and simultaneously criticize it for not having enough detail. Mayor Piercy averred that the council was putting into place things that “create possibilities for usage” rather than the inevitability of that use. She also felt that they were working toward a “win-win” situation and trying to find a way to build something “together.” Councilor Bettman opined that there was a very big difference between a public process that said “We have over $50 million in public money to invest in this community, How should it be invested for the greatest possible good?” and the public process that was on the table, which she felt to be a constrained project concept by “1.2 developers.” She asserted that they were saying this is what we are going to do, how do we “put lipstick on this pig.” She felt staff had it both ways. She alleged that when staff wants to say something could change, that it was “still in formation,” staff would say there were no details and it was not a “done deal.” She thought the advisory committee had a “very constrained scope” and it was being asked how it wanted to design the project and there was no legal requirement that its recommendations were reflected in the final project. 4. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effective Date City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to make the Eugene Code consistent with a recent change to State law. He said that following the passage of Ballot Measure 37 the City Council adopted an ordinance beginning a process to implement it. He stated that if a claim is filed and the regulation remained in place 180 days later, then under Measure 37, the property owner could go to court. The recent change to Measure 37 changed this to 540 days. The City Code contained a reference to the 180 day time period. Ballot Measure 37 did not require this. He said the proposed ordinance would change the code by deleting the reference to 180 days and changing it to language that said “consistent with any requirements of State law.” Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules of testimony. John Sihler , 4235 Brae Burn Drive, stated that Mr. Klein had clearly explained the ordinance language. He averred that Mr. Klein was correct. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked if there were any questions or comments from the council. Councilor Clark thanked Mr. Sihler for sitting through the meeting to testify on the last item. Mayor Piercy ascertained that Councilor Bettman objected to taking action at the present meeting and no action was taken. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 11 Work Session City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 12 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 23, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/31/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff 9/14 Returned to Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/18 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 23, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy related that she had attended the performance of the Hunan performers. She lauded the performance for its “excellent musicians, acting and singing, and martial arts.” She noted it was a free event that attracted people who do not ordinarily go to the Hult Center for the Performing Arts. Mayor Piercy stated that the West Broadway Advisory Committee was meeting and working on the council directive regarding development projects on West Broadway. She said the West Eugene Collaborative was also “working hard” on traffic issues. She added that she, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor attended the first preparatory meeting for the United Front lobbying trip earlier in the day. Mr. Pryor reported that he was, with the “tremendous help” of the Churchill Area Neighbors (CAN), setting up a blog on the CAN Web site. He looked forward to taking advantage of the technological opportunity to be in better touch with his neighborhood. Ms. Bettman thanked the Mayor for mentioning the United Front. She said staff provided the councilors with a booklet that compiled all of the “asks” since 1986. She related that staff indicated that even though there had been a shift in politics, the money “was not there,” and the reason for this was the war. She predicted it would impact what they looked at as community priorities. Mr. Poling announced that he would not be able to attend the work session scheduled for July 25 as he would be attending a conference with the Association of Clean Water Agencies in Bend. He said the conference would focus on topics related to wastewater management and stormwater. Mr. Clark related that he had met with a number of constituents concerned with the infestation of nutria around the Delta Ponds wetlands. He thought his colleagues would be shocked at the intensity of the infestation. He said residents in the surrounding area were overwhelmed by nutria waste. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka was glad to see that the gas station owners were unsuccessful in their attempt to place the gas tax on the ballot. He had been disappointed to see a letter to the editor of The Register-Guard that claimed that the City had purposely committed voter fraud. He wished to stress that “nothing could be farther from the truth.” Mr. Zelenka displayed a shoebox that was 100 percent recyclable and was made utilizing sustainable business practices. He averred that Eugene should be “riding that wave.” He believed the box represented a great example of a sustainable project. Ms. Ortiz reminded her colleagues who wished to bid City Manager Dennis Taylor farewell that there would be an event honoring him on the following day in Studio One of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts from 4 to 6 p.m. She also wished to remind the community that now was the time to apply for boards, commissions, and committees. She noted there were five vacancies on the Police Commission. Ms. Ortiz said she would be speaking about her work in public service to the Latino/Latina Leadership Class at the Lane Community College the following day. Continuing, Ms. Ortiz reported that the Lane County Commissioners were undertaking a “listening tour.” She related that Commissioner Bobby Green would be at Willamette High School on August 1 at p.m. and she planned to attend. In closing, Ms. Ortiz shared a national magazine she received on Latino leaders that featured State School Superintendent Susan Castillo. City Manager Taylor introduced Kris Bloch, now serving as the Mayor and Council support staff person, who was sitting in for Beth Forrest, AIC (Acting in Capacity) Council Coordinator. He said he had been working with Assistant City Manager Angel Jones to ensure that there would be a smooth transition. He thanked everyone for the opportunity to serve as City Manager of the City of Eugene. B. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with the Police Commission City Manager Taylor introduced Police Commission Chair Maurie Denner and Vice Chair Angie Sifuentez. He said they would provide the annual report. He noted that the Police Commission was “one of the most hard-working commissions” in the City of Eugene and that its record of accomplishment was “outstanding.” Ms. Sifuentez thanked the City Manager for his kind words. She introduced the council to the new Vice Chair as of July 1, Joe Alsup, and the Chair Elect, Tamara Miller, who would be assuming their positions on November 1. She related that Mr. Denner, John Brown, Carla Newbre, and she would soon complete their last terms on the commission at the end of October. She said the commission had begun the year by recruiting new members. Tim Laue, Floyd Prozanski, Tracy Olson, Neil Van Steenbergen, and Ms. Bettman had completed their terms after years of service. She stated that the commission welcomed Mr. Alsup, Ms. Miller, Charlie Zennaché, and Charles Hare, as well as the new council liaisons, George Poling and Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Sifuentez reported that the Police Commission formed a committee to look at how the police response to domestic disturbances could be improved. She noted that when the committee began meeting it was during the difficult County budget process and it had been hard for agency representatives to find time to meet with MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 2 Work Session them. She said the committee ultimately had been able to identify “some low-hanging fruit” and would provide the commissioners with a report in September. Ms. Sifuentez stated that another committee formed to review and update the existing Police Operating Manual (POM) utilizing Lexipol as the basis for policy updates. She said a subcommittee was formed under that committee to specifically look at Tasers and use of force. She related that in April, when all of nd the new members were on board, they had gone to the 2 Avenue and Chambers Street training facility and had an overview of the application of police use of force which included four hours of scenario training. She felt the training had been valuable as it provided a better understanding of the legal parameters and the dynamics of situations. She reported that the Use of Force/Taser Police Committee met several times and was very interested in community input. She stressed that each meeting opened and closed with a community forum portion of the agenda and that people could submit comments on the Web at any time. She said given that the subcommittee was wrestling with critical issues, the item would be carried over to the next year. Continuing, Ms. Sifuentez said the work around police response to people who were having a mental health crisis would continue into the next year. She explained that the Mental Health Crisis Response Committee (MHCRC) learned that this was a massive and complex problem. She related that the MHCRC had researched models for crisis intervention training, they had input from consumers, and they had developed some recommendations. Mr. Denner said the “other big piece” of the program had to do with oversight. He observed that Eugene had done more work around policy and planning than a number of communities did, but more communities had an oversight model similar to what had evolved with the auditor’s position and the Civilian Review Board (CRB). He noted that the commission also spent time on the groundwork for Cris Beamud, Police Auditor, to do the work to train the CRB as it was set up. He said they also worked at setting a context so that it did not feel to the community like indoctrination; rather it was akin to “opening doors.” Mr. Denner stated that one unresolved issue was related to the oversight language. He said a subgroup of the commission spent time helping Ms. Beamud craft language regarding what constituted a complaint and how they would be identified. He related that they met with Ms. Beamud several times and had held the first joint meeting of the CRB and the Police Commission. Mr. Denner indicated that there was a second suggested motion in the council packet related to scheduling a public hearing on some recommended changes to the ordinance that established the Police Commission. He explained that the commission was recommending the ordinance be modified so the liaison or person appointed by the Chief of Police was eliminated and replaced with an at-large member. He said as the CRB introduced larger issues to the community they planned to bring them to the Police Commission which would review policies and conduct outreach. Mr. Denner invited Mr. Alsup and Ms. Miller to the table. Mr. Alsup underscored that the committees that were the Police Commission’s primary focus were the MHCRC and the Use of Force/Taser Police Committee. He said the committee that was working on domestic violence would continue its work, but for the present fiscal restraints were going to restrict any results; primarily the recommendations were for procedural improvements and training. Regarding the MHCRC, Mr. Alsup reported that the committee members had talked to representatives of 13 agencies. He related that the overriding theme they heard was that the loss of a safety net of services for MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 3 Work Session people in a mental health crisis created a situation where, by default, police officers were the resource called to help. He said the lack of alternatives demanded there be reviews in order to see if there were other things to put into place so some of the tragedies that had transpired could be avoided in the future. He said the “first tier wish list” included provision of a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT). He explained that they reviewed the Memphis model, in which a specially trained CIT would be dispatched if a 911 call was made for someone in a mental health crisis. He stated that many communities now had a CIT. He related that the most compelling presentation they had seen was from the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department, which had a CIT training and team. He felt this was obviously doable and that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) could do it. He said there was also compelling evidence that supported enhancement of the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) services, perhaps with expanded hours and a second vehicle. Mr. Alsup related that the second tier wish list included establishment of a facility with a no refusal policy. He explained that the alternative that officers had at this point was to take people in crisis to jail or to the Johnson Unit at Sacred Heart Hospital. He averred that taking someone in this type of crisis to jail was not the “best therapeutic thing to do.” The committee supported having a facility similar to the Buckley House that was staffed with professional mental health personnel so that people had somewhere to go. He related that the other item on the list was to expand Mental Health Court. He explained that the court could visibly mandate mental health supervision and programs and services. Continuing, Mr. Alsup stated that the MHCRC had a third tier wish list which included reinstatement of the psychiatric beds at the jail. He underscored that a critical mass happened when that option for patients was lost. He related that they heard testimony from almost all of the agency representatives that affirmed that the crisis had become repetitive and the incidents more severe after that closure. He said the last item on the list was to potentially reserve some bed space at the state facility that was planned to be built in Junction City. Mr. Alsup reported that the Use of Force/Taser Police Committee, chaired by Mr. Brown and Ms. Miller, had been the most “energized” with emotional concerns. He believed it was for good reason. He acknowl- edged that when tasers were first used elsewhere, it was a tool that was sometimes abused and used for coercion and punishment because of the lack of oversight. He hoped they could give EPD officers another tool that was short of deadly force to confront a person who was aggressing toward them. He said forming the policy and making it viable with community values had been interesting. He related that the public forum held on June 27 was attended by over 50 people. He listed the public concerns, which included a distrust of the police and that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) felt the process was flawed in that it lacked public input. Regarding the latter, he said the commission had worked with the HRC and the perception had improved. He also noted that some mental health advocates had pointed to the misuse of tasers that had occurred early on. He reported that there was no consensus among medical professionals regarding the health implications of taser use, but there was concern that the risk of taser application could be a contributing factor to death in some cases. He pointed out that there had not been an independent study of taser use; rather studies had been primarily industry-based. Mr. Alsup commended the committee members for their hard work on the difficult issue of tasers. He stressed that they “all had [their] eye on the prize” of finding a solution other than deadly force for officers confronted with deadly violence. He said other areas of the taser policy that were explored included where to place tasers on the use-of-force continuum, whether there should be a minimum number of taser applications per incident per subject, what defined a static resister, whether fleeing subjects could be “tased,” whether officer training could include voluntary taser use on themselves, and how to define MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 4 Work Session “medically fragile.” Regarding the minimum number of taser applications, he noted that general consensus was that the limit per application should be five seconds. Mr. Alsup stated that the commission was looking at the International City Managers Association (ICMA) report in its work on policies related to in-car video. Ms. Miller reported that there were two new projects on the work plan having to do with council priorities. She said the commission assembled a small task force to work to refine siting criteria for a police patrol facility that was separate from City Hall. The task force will be presenting its report at the September meeting of the Police Commission. Ms. Miller stated that the second item was related to the Magellan staffing study. She related that the commission discussed at its June 14 meeting what role it might have in facilitating a community conversa- tion on police staffing levels and in formulating policy recommendations on long-range staffing decisions. The commission concluded it needed to better understand the report’s inputs and variables so that the commission could speak to how credible the results of the study were, to develop recommendations on the staffing analysis, and to help identify key policy issues related to staffing and service levels. She said the commission would facilitate public education input on police staffing expectations and priorities. Ms. Miller said the commission was preparing for a “major membership transition.” She noted that Hugh Massengill resigned as the HRC liaison. She looked forward to having a new liaison. She reported that the commission would also be recruiting for replacements for Ms. Sifuentez, Mr. Denner, Mr. Ahlen, and Ms. Newbre. She commended them for their eight years of service to the Police Commission. She related that the Police Commission recommended that there be an orientation for all incoming members of boards, committees, and commissions. She averred that it would be beneficial for the incoming people to be briefed on roles, expectations, and public meeting procedures among other things. Additionally, Ms. Miller noted that the commission had “attempted” to not take on too many new projects. She averred that this would leave room for emerging issues and for new members to “get up to speed.” Mayor Piercy thanked the commissioners for the report. She expressed appreciation for the four commis- sioners who were completing their terms. Mayor Piercy suggested that the commission include the Police Auditor when reviewing the Magellan report. She felt Ms. Beamud could bring a level of expertise to the table. Mayor Piercy wished to note her concern that it could be difficult to discern who was physically frail when an officer was faced with deciding whether or not to deploy a taser. Ms. Ortiz thanked the members of the commission who were nearing the end of their terms and said it had been a pleasure to work with them. She believed that the police did not have the skills to identify whether a person was having a mental health crisis and to know how to get them to a safe place. She advocated for giving them those skills. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Alsup affirmed that the MHCRC had made a flow chart that delineated the options a person in crisis would have. Ms. Ortiz remarked that different people had different ways of addressing things and there was no set standard for what worked best for anyone. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Ortiz lauded CAHOOTS, saying that it was “obvious” it was a good program. She recalled that CAHOOTS had applied to put a second van in Springfield, but the City of Springfield opted not to support it. She commented that if it was “already clogged” in Eugene with one van, where would the people go with two vans? She felt the problem needed to be addressed systemically. Mr. Alsup said often the CAHOOTS team could solve the initial problem and keep people from going into incarceration. Ms. Bettman echoed the previously expressed gratitude for the four departing commissioners. She appreciated the detail on both the Use of Force Policies and for the work of the MHCRC. Regarding the taser policy, she had heard from a constituent that indicated that departments were utilizing tasers with video cameras on them. She thought this would aid the perception of transparency in the process for the community. Mr. Alsup affirmed that some tasers had video and audio capacity. Mr. Denner said they would have a trial with four that had video capacity and four that did not. He stated that tasers with video capacity added to the bulk and weight on police utility belts. He explained that the video was only active once the taser was out of the utility belt and was activated. Ms. Bettman asked if the subcommittee looked at having video capacity included on all tasers. Mr. Alsup replied that this was why the trial was set up to compare the two types of tasers. He underscored that they were trying to ascertain the benefits of the video option. He was uncertain whether the downside of that bulk and the finite time it would be recording would be outweighed by the benefits. Ms. Bettman asked where the police siting options were in relation to the City Council’s timeline regarding a new city hall. Police Chief Bob Lehner recalled that when the most recent discussion regarding a new city hall had been held, part of the materials included an element of assistance of a consultant to look at and evaluate different sites. He related that the Police Commission was asked if it would take on an advisory role and a facilitation role in terms of increased public input into the process. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Chief Lehner clarified that the Police Commission had been asked to assist by the council and this was an add-on to the process. Ms. Bettman asked if the committee’s work would transpire prior to the council’s consideration of site options. City Manager Taylor affirmed that it would. He said there would be workshop on September 26, after the council break, and this process would provide assistance through the consultants to follow on the adoption of the work from the last council work session on this item. He felt it would provide additional information consistent with the concept that was explained to the council at the last workshop. Ms. Bettman asked if the council had ever definitively, by a motion or action, defined the sites for a patrol facility as within downtown. City Manager Taylor replied that the council had not. He thought the position now was to look for a site outside of the City Hall complex. Ms. Bettman said she knew it was thought to be outside of City Hall but she had not realized that sites outside of the downtown area were being considered. Mr. Zelenka wished to add his gratitude for the service of the departing members of the Police Commission. He also wanted to know how much an additional CAHOOTS van would cost. Chief Lehner responded that it would cost $70,000, not including operating costs. He noted that when the City of Springfield backed out MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 6 Work Session from participating in the purchase of another van, the City of Eugene increased the hours of the existing CAHOOTS unit with the money it would have contributed to the second van. Mr. Zelenka asked who requested that the Police Commission help out with siting a new patrol facility. Chief Lehner replied that the council asked the Police Commission to do so. He explained that it was in the work plan for the overall City Hall project. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Chief Lehner stated that the only decision that had been made was that it would be better not to have the police patrol facility inside the City Hall building but other than that, no site, downtown or otherwise, had been ruled out. Mr. Zelenka averred that it would be appropriate to bring the scope of that group back to the council to ensure that everyone was “on the same page.” Ms. Ortiz observed that the committee was conducting outreach not dissimilar to the committees that involved the communities of color and other committees. She thought the Police Commission was the “obvious arm” of the community to try and generate interest and get information out about police patrol facilities. She underscored that this was her understanding of the charge. Mr. Denner pointed out that Ms. Ortiz had volunteered to serve on the committee. Mr. Zelenka asked if Ms. Ortiz understood the options to include the existing City Hall site. Ms. Ortiz replied that the options included any property that the City owned. Mr. Zelenka noted that the existing site was a large lot and nothing would preclude the patrol facility for being constructed on it. Chief Lehner agreed. He said the only limitation, as he understood the council’s actions, was that the decision had been made that the main police patrol facility would not be part of the City Hall building. Ms. Ortiz reiterated that all of the recommendations would come back to the City Council for approval. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the Police Commission’s work plan for Fiscal Year 08. Ms. Bettman said she would want to see the language that was being cited. She did not remember that the council delegated to the Police Commission the work of garnering public input on the patrol facility siting process. She wanted to know what the council’s role would be after receiving the committee’s recommenda- tion. She indicated she would vote against the work plan until she had this information. Mr. Zelenka commented that he was uncertain as to what exactly the work plan included in regard to site selection. He indicated he would oppose the motion until he had a better understanding of it. Ms. Taylor also did not understand why the Police Commission would “be dealing” with the site selection. Mr. Denner explained that the charge of the Police Commission was to be the committee advisory to the EPD and the City Council, as well as the management team. He said based on the commission’s experience with police issues, he had considered a compliment to be asked to help in this way. He stressed that the commission would provide whatever public input it could but would not serve in a decision- making role. Ms. Taylor agreed that the commission served as an advisory body regarding policy but she did not perceive the siting of the patrol facility as policy-related. She said she was “a little disturbed” by this. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy said if the council did not have enough clarification on this particular item, it seemed to her that it could be pulled out of the work plan for separate consideration. Mr. Clark thanked the commissioners whose terms were ending and commended them for volunteering. He said he would support the motion. He did not see any fundamental change in the responsibility of the City Council when it came time to appropriately site a new police facility. He perceived the Police Commission’s work on this as “a wonderful addition to that,” given all of the work the commission did on police policy and the depth of understanding they had of some of the intricacies of what would be required in a new facility. Mr. Zelenka read from the document that the committee would evaluate potential sites and functions and that the team would work with staff to develop site criteria, research options for possible locations, and consider which programs would operate out of the facility. He assumed that the City Council would do this. He understood that the council wanted help in doing this work and he thought the Police Commission would add “some valuable conversation to that.” He said he wanted to see what “that was all about” before the commission did this task. Ms. Solomon expressed confidence that the committee would not get off “running in the wrong direction” because Ms. Ortiz was sitting on the committee. She pointed out that it was six-week task force working on a short timeline. She did not understand why the council would not want their input. She averred that they were “just taking a first cut” at the issues and possibly sifting out the ones that would not work for the City. She appreciated the committee’s willingness to do some of the research for the council. Ms. Taylor commented that she would “belatedly” thank the departing commissioners for their service and she wanted also to congratulate Mayor Piercy on her new appointments. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to temporarily delete the language regarding the patrol facility siting from the motion to approve the work plan. Ms. Bettman said it sounded to her like the process would be completed before the council would do what it thought it would do. She felt the work would be prescriptive. She indicated that she would support the other recommendations in the work program. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Denner stated that the Police Commission had not undertaken a process at this point to identify the community priorities; it had not scoped out the work yet. Mr. Zelenka supported the amendment, adding that he supported the rest of the items in the work plan. Mayor Piercy expressed concern about “how this will work out.” She felt that with a little more work something that “was satisfying for everyone” could be provided. She thought it was in the best interest of the commission to “get to a place where everybody could say ‘yeah, go do that.’” The motion to amend failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Zelenka voting in fa- vor. The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposi- tion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to schedule a public hearing on an ordinance concerning the Police Commission. Ms. Bettman observed that the Citizen Review Board had been changed to the Civilian Review Board. She noted that the proposed ordinance contained language that referred to members of the Police Commission as citizens and asked if that was intentional. She asked if they wanted to replace the word ‘citizen’ with ‘civilian.’ She wanted to know whether there was a requirement for members of the Police Commission to be a citizen. Mr. Denner replied that members were required to live within the city limits. Ms. Bettman averred that ‘citizen’ had a legal definition and suggested that inclusion of that word made it a criterion to be a citizen. She thought they needed to find a different word. City Attorney Jerry Lidz said he did not think the word ‘citizen’ in the ordinance would make citizenship a requirement. He noted that the Police Commission had been in existence for eight years and he did not believe anyone had suggested that citizenship was a requirement. He pointed out that if Ms. Bettman wished to change the word ‘citizen’ to ‘civilian’ it would be no trouble to do so. Ms. Bettman indicated that she would like to consider using a word other than ‘citizen.’ She expressed concern that the word ‘citizen’ could deter someone from applying for the Police Commission. Ms. Bettman suggested that the CRB liaison be considered a member of the Police Commission instead of adding another member to it. Ms. Ortiz concurred. Ms. Taylor also agreed and asked if the council should make a motion to that effect. City Manager Taylor recommended waiting. He suggested that staff prepare it as options for the motion in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) at the time. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment so that the language referring to the Police Auditor making periodic reports to the Police Commission would say “shall” and not “may.” The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman cited language the indicated that the “member appointed from the Civilian Review Board shall assist in redirecting any complaints received about employees.” It seemed to her that it was the obligation of the City staff and EPD staff to ensure that complaints were officially forwarded to the Police Auditor. She said when she served on the Police Commission, people came to the public forums with complaints and she felt appreciative that commissioners would forward complaints. She thought the language was misleading because it did not reinforce staff’s obligation to forward complaints. Mr. Denner stressed that the intent of the Police Commission in recommending this language was to provide a friendly response to someone who was upset with customer service and not necessarily just a staff response. He said it was not intended to keep staff from redirecting that complaint. Ms. Bettman agreed that it was not anything but a language issue. She wanted language that would reinforce that it was staff’s obligation and that the CRB member would assist the complainant. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Exceptions for Tailgating Around Autzen Stadium City Manager Taylor invited Captain Pete Kerns of the EPD to address the council on education, enforce- ment and the changing dynamics around Autzen Stadium, especially during football season. Capt. Kerns noted that Chief Lehner, Senior Planner Linda Phelps, Building and Permit Services Division Manager Marsha Miller, and Ross Williamson from the City Attorney’s Office had helped with the proposed changes to the City ordinance. He recalled that they had first brought a handful of options before the council on February 26 to help address some of the problems around public drinking around Autzen Stadium on game days. He said those included the disparity of enforcement of the public drinking ordinance, as it was enforced effectively around the City except for on game day where it was violated “massively” at neighboring properties around Autzen Stadium. He stated that there was also a disparity between what was permitted on Autzen Stadium property and what was not permitted across the street. He recalled that staff had been asked to come up with solutions to address the problem behavior related to alcohol consumption in that area. He said staff left the work session with some direction to consider a permitting option that would permit property owners who wished to have pay-per-use parking lots to get an exception to the public drinking ordinance. He related that through discussions with the not-for-profit organizations that would be affected by the ordinance and through internal discussions, staff arrived at the proposal that was before the council. Capt. Kerns explained that the permits would provide non-profit property owners to provide pay-per-use parking lots by registering with the PDD and the PDD would develop a process by which they could register. He said they would be required to provide a handbill to every vehicle operator who parked in the lots, that signage be posted regarding what the permit-able hours of alcohol consumption were, the prohibition of both the provision of alcohol to minors and the sale of alcohol, that disorderly behavior would not be tolerated, and that violations of the ordinance would be reported to the City which would result in a penalty of $200 on the first offense. He stated that three violations in one year would preclude being able to apply for a permit in the next year. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Capt. Kerns affirmed that the University of Oregon had rules dictating that anyone who violated behavior expectations on the University’s property would not be allowed to return. Mayor Piercy said she would like to see that other non-profit property owners were also required to disallow anyone who was behaving badly. Ms. Ortiz remarked that she wished they could ban alcohol altogether. She thought that it impacted public safety “down the road” on game days. She felt the overtime hours that officers worked also put the community at risk. She said she could support the ordinance in order to place the adjacent non-profit agencies on the same playing field as the Autzen Stadium lot. Ms. Taylor asked if the University was subject to the same penalties as the private lot owners. Mr. Lidz replied that it was not because it was under State jurisdiction. Ms. Taylor agreed that it should be equal, though she found it ironic that there would be drinking in a parking lot for cars, given that someone would have to drive the car out of the lot, possibly after having consumed alcohol. Mr. Clark indicated his support for the ordinance. He asked how the permitting process would work. Capt. Kerns said the details had yet to be worked out. He added that part of the reason for permitting was to determine who would be the responsible party for the property. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 10 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Miller explained that the registration for a permit would “simply be paper shuffling.” She said the City would give a permit to anyone who came in for one. The reason they went with the registration was in order to have a contact name in case there were problems. Ms. Bettman opined that the ordinance was a “morally bankrupt public policy” because she believed it endorsed intoxication and drinking. She asserted that there were 56,000 traffic deaths per year nationwide and the majority of those involved alcohol. She felt the argument that some properties were making money from the tailgating parties made it okay brought up the issue of some of the property being public property. She pointed out that the Willamette Institute for Science and Technology (WISTEC) was publicly owned. She wanted to know what the City’s liability would be in the event that something happened. Ms. Bettman also took issue with the “special treatment” that allowed rules to be broken for football games. She asked how it would be different if it was a rock and roll concert or the Oregon Country Fair. She said she would not even support sending the ordinance to a public hearing. She declared that it would create more problems without creating more capacity to enforce the laws. Mr. Poling said he had brought the issue before the City Council based on suggestions from some of the non-profit organizations’ directors and members. He stressed that the ordinance was not about endorsing alcohol, it was about equalizing the rules for the non-profit organizations. He stated that otherwise the City should ban alcohol altogether for game days. He noted that many of the organizations already had rules in place and enforced them. He added that most of the people who park on these lots were known by property owners and had been there for a long time. Mr. Poling related that he had seen firsthand the results of alcohol consumption and what happened after people had been drinking and driving. He underscored that this did not stop young people from having parties when their parents were away on vacation and it did not stop the designated driver from having a few drinks. He noted that he had arrested designated drivers numerous times. Mr. Poling approved of the proposed geographic area for the ordinance. Mr. Zelenka related that he had “gone tailgating.” He was torn between encouraging drinking and driving and leveling the field for the surrounding non-profit-owned parking lots. He was not certain that it was a good public policy. He said he would welcome testimony from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other groups indicating how they would modify the ordinance. He was not necessarily in favor of banning alcohol at this point. Mr. Zelenka expressed some uncertainty as to whether putting the property owners into the enforcement role would work. He thought having them enforce rules and potentially kick someone off the property would be challenging. He hoped that the council would review this after the football season and see what happened. Mr. Zelenka thought the size of the exemption zone was large and wondered why it was so big. Capt. Kerns replied that it was an easily identifiable area. He said it included the properties that had traditionally offered tailgating and also only included commercial land. He underscored that the ordinance was really only designed for those properties for which it made sense to offer pay-per-use parking. Mr. Zelenka said he would like to see amendment language that would narrow the boundaries, especially to exclude Alton Baker Park. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Clark suggested that this was not so much about treating football games differently. He noted that he had worked in an organization that raised money for youth, selling concessions at Grateful Dead concerts among other things. He assured his colleagues that very similar conduct was going on in the parking lot and surrounding area during such events. He stressed that the ordinance would not change the current behavior; no new tailgate parties would “sprout up.” He supported its approval. Ms. Bettman opined that this was like saying “people shoplift so let’s just make it legal.” She wanted language that would eliminate the exemption altogether. She thought it “just did not make sense.” She felt that alcohol consumption within the stadium was “fine.” She reiterated her request for information regarding the City’s liability. Capt. Kerns clarified that drinking was not currently allowed in Autzen Stadium. Mr. Poling asked Ms. Bettman if she meant eliminating all alcohol consumption, including the parking lots and the Moshofsky Center. Capt. Kerns noted that event inside the Moshofsky Center on game days had an Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) license. Ms. Bettman affirmed that she would seek to eliminate drinking entirely, with the exception of drinking licensed by the OLCC. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4951, an ordinance amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bett- man voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 12 Work Session